Leary_Ban said:

The "competition" is actually the same kind of competition AT&T has.

---

meams said:

Let's dig deep into this fun debate

So, this is the result of free market capitalism.  Perhaps.  It seems to make some sense:  the industry may have been recently deregulated, allowing them to operate under these sub-optimal conditions, which may or may not have led to this particular spill.  However, you cited that the cost cutting measures that (you assumed) led to this spill were (you assumed) probably done to help strengthen their company against competition.

However, if it's competition the company is worrying about, regulating them more (and thus, possibly preventing this incident) would only lead to a more difficult battle for the firm, and would likely result in the closing of the organization. 

Now, I pose this question:  Do you either ...
(a) regulate more heavily, and prevent the possibility of situations like this from arising, at the cost of your industry's competitiveness in an increasingly-global market.  If these regulations happen to cause the firm to be at such a disadvantage it was forced to shut down, then all the workers in this firm (and any other firm who is affected as much) would be out of work, thus cutting consumption expenditures in affected areas, thus draining more economic activity from the surrounding communities, etc.etc?.... or do you
(b) Keep the regulations only to what is necessary, allowing the firm to compete as efficiently as possible - allowing it to continue to generate taxes (federal, state & local), employ as many people as needed (in the other instance, decreased competitiveness could lead to a cutback in employment - even if the firm is able to stay open), and provide fuel for their local economy (as well as a service or product that is consumed by someone who demands it)?

I'm not going to say which I prefer, but i'm pretty sure you know which it is.


I'm not saying disasters like these aren't bad - they're terrible.  Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant or just plain mean.  Our national levels of production, employment, wealth come at a great cost:  the safety of our national environment, and sometimes (in instances like these) even our population.


Hi, I'm a libertarian.

---

Quote:

mandate that the newer companies factor in future costs of current waste production

---

Mr. Mushrooms said:

Monopoly's are a bad thing.

---

meams said:

A tax newer companies have to do that older companies don't gives the older copmanies an unfair advantage relative to their newer counterparts.  I would consider that an effect on competitiveness.

---

Quote:

Ferris said:I'd say, apply the same regulations to every company of the same category, and mandate that the newer companies factor in future costs of current waste production, thus negating any effect on competitiveness.

---