The company only had $1 million policy, but did over $100 million in damages.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/a...story.html

And this would be a good example of why I think there should be more government regulation of business, not less.

Quote:“It’s rare for Texas to require insurance for any kind of hazardous activity,” he said. “We have very little oversight of hazardous activities and even less regulation.”

Understand that when republibertarianeo-conazi shits like Rick Perry talk about his state being "friendly" towards business he means it in the sense of a whore being "friendly" to her customers.

(May 5, 2013 at 3:48 am)Dragonetti Wrote: The company only had $1 million policy, but did over $100 million in damages.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/a...story.html

Erm, so what? That only means that the other $99 million in damages should come out of the company's pocket. I don't find it shameful that the company took out such a small policy; I find it rather stupid considering the amount of danger surrounding the plant.

What I find shameful is that the people responsible are likely just going to claim bankruptcy and get away with their crimes. What should happen is the following:

1) Investigate who was responsible for safety at the plant.
2) Prosecute them all, with damages and possible criminal convictions aimed at those people.
3) Divide up the money from the damages and the insurance policy amongst the people who have a valid claim to it.

(May 5, 2013 at 6:51 am)festive1 Wrote: And this would be a good example of why I think there should be more government regulation of business, not less.

I think that is a emotional reaction, and not a well thought out one. Yes, government regulation can sometimes help, but remember to a large degree it also stifles out small competitors who cannot afford to comply with government regulation, yet are perfectly safe businesses.

Depends on the business. I have no problem with the government regulating potentially dangerous industries such as fertilizer plants. I agree to a point, that businesses need to be free to find their place in the market, but when it comes to matters of potential public safety, I say regulate that shit. From all the reports I've read about this particular fertilizer plant it seems that there were problems on all ends, they were cited by regulators, but then not re-evaluated to ensure they complied. The business owners seem to have not cared about the potential dangers in their plant. Fails all around.

Quote:Erm, so what? That only means that the other $99 million in damages should come out of the company's pocket.

Time to learn about bankruptcy laws, Divine Tiberius. The "company's" prime asset is what blew up. What do you think is left?

(May 5, 2013 at 12:27 pm)festive1 Wrote: Depends on the business. I have no problem with the government regulating potentially dangerous industries such as fertilizer plants. I agree to a point, that businesses need to be free to find their place in the market, but when it comes to matters of potential public safety, I say regulate that shit. From all the reports I've read about this particular fertilizer plant it seems that there were problems on all ends, they were cited by regulators, but then not re-evaluated to ensure they complied. The business owners seem to have not cared about the potential dangers in their plant. Fails all around.

...and for that, they should be prosecuted as criminals. Endangering the safety of people, especially if those people are unaware of the danger, is a crime, or at the very least should be treated like one.

That said, I don't like it when innocent law-abiding citizens are treated as potential criminals just because of the actions of a very small section of society. The vast majority of people aren't criminals, and we don't deserve to be treated like them.

---

(May 5, 2013 at 12:31 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Erm, so what? That only means that the other $99 million in damages should come out of the company's pocket.

Time to learn about bankruptcy laws, Divine Tiberius. The "company's" prime asset is what blew up. What do you think is left?

Pretty sure they didn't store their profits in a vault on site. The owner and operators at fault have property right? They have salaries, savings, etc.?

If the company made no profits at all, then unfortunately, there isn't much that can be done money wise. The people responsible can rot in jail, and we can hope that the charity of others can help rebuild homes that were destroyed.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I don't trust the average person. I want government officials to ok that bakery that opened down the street to ensure they don't have pests or potentially hazardous conditions for their customers or employees. I don't want unregulated daycares that don't have to worry about a random government person coming by. And I certainly don't want some random person purchasing the chemicals necessary to make fertilizer without some form of oversight.
I agree there are times when the regulation gets too much to allow for competition, but on the whole I like that industries are regulated.
I totally agree with you though, what happened at that plant is criminal negligence. But my money's on not one person being held criminally responsible.

(May 5, 2013 at 12:41 pm)festive1 Wrote: I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I don't trust the average person.

Well, you kinda do disagree with what I'm saying then. Please, don't feel like you need to say you agree with me to be polite. You clearly disagree, and that's fine.

Quote:I want government officials to ok that bakery that opened down the street to ensure they don't have pests or potentially hazardous conditions for their customers or employees.

You realize that government officials are, for the most part, average people right? What makes you trust them, but not anyone else? Why trust the regulators?

Besides, I'm not entirely sure you know what think a government visit is going to prove. All it shows is that at that time, on that specific day, the place was seemingly legit. I say seemingly because there are plenty of ways to distract investigators from the facts. My point is, if you go to any store, anywhere, even if they have a lovely pretty certificate saying they are government approved, it is not a guarantee that they are, at that particular point in time, following regulations.

Quote:I don't want unregulated daycares that don't have to worry about a random government person coming by.

I'd imagine there are plenty of these, usually because they don't advertise themselves to the government in the first place.

Quote:And I certainly don't want some random person purchasing the chemicals necessary to make fertilizer without some form of oversight.

Erm...you realize it's pretty easy to do this anyway right?

Quote:I totally agree with you though, what happened at that plant is criminal negligence. But my money's on not one person being held criminally responsible.

Right, and that in my opinion is the main thing wrong here. Not a lack of regulation, but the fact that the people responsible aren't going to be held responsible. I'm honestly not sure what more regulation could have done in this scenario; it's a plant that deals with chemicals, and it's run by infallible humans. Mistakes are bound to happen at some points; that has been shown through human history.

Do you think, Tibs, that people are basically good and that money has no influence on their actions (in a negative/unethical way) when more money is to be made? Just trying to understand your POV.