Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

archpaper.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 366 posts

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#281

Post by gonehome »

ericb wrote: post #259
gonehome wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, no - you need to expand on the why in order to have some sort of substantive discussion (especially when using politically loaded language). Lobbying in its positive form is about experts trying to explain things to representatives that don't understand the specifics of the field. When done right a representative should get perspective from different areas and be able to understand the issues/regulations…

I would argue that the advent of PAC's and Citizens United has more or less obsoleted the positive case--which you're right, I don't object too. What I mean is, if I'm a politician and two lobbyist show up "explaining" if I listen to the one from a PAC with the briefcase full of campaign contributions, in the next election I'm more likely to stay a politician, so there's now a selective pressure toward corruption on…

Yeah I agree that that's a problem (you'd probably like the video I linked in my original comment and his book Republic Lost).

I heard an interview on the Stay Tuned podcast (Preet Bharara's podcast) where he interviewed one of the lawyers that argued the winning side of citizen's united. It was an interesting interview and an over simplified summary was that the influence of campaign contributions which come from concentrated groups is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with, but putting government restrictions on speech in order to do it sets a dangerous precedent (at what point are you rich enough where you're no longer allowed to participate in political speech?).

Anyway - thanks for clarifying.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#282

Post by lb1lf »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #276
blattimwind wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"same same" is the enemy of quality in any supply chain.

And the friend of your customer's wallet. Trade-offs are everywhere.

Depends on the time span; a once mentor of mine always quipped that the ultimate act of laziness was to do things properly the first time and be done with it; much the same goes for the economics of cost savings - long term, quality tends to lead to longer maintenance intervals and simpler maintenance at that.

The ultimate cheapness is to buy quality items and be done with it. (Obviously, there will be cases where this doesn't hold true, but as a first-order approximation...)

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#283

Post by s73v3r_ »

rayiner wrote: post #207

The reaction on here is disappointing. Asbestos isn't nuclear waste: it causes harm in well understood ways, and the dangers of its use can be mitigated. A case-by-case analysis of new asbestos products is absolutely a reasonable approach. The EPA is charged with regulating rationally. Costs must be weighed against benefits. That balancing process is itself something that saves lives-- e.g. there are people who are d…

And we don't trust the Trump administration to make that assessment in a rational way.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#284

Post by s73v3r_ »

refurb wrote: post #278
rayiner wrote: post #207

The reaction on here is disappointing. Asbestos isn't nuclear waste: it causes harm in well understood ways, and the dangers of its use can be mitigated. A case-by-case analysis of new asbestos products is absolutely a reasonable approach. The EPA is charged with regulating rationally. Costs must be weighed against benefits. That balancing process is itself something that saves lives-- e.g. there are people who are d…

Considering HN probably has a high percentage of well educated people on it, you can clearly see why politics is such a mess. People react emotionally to these things, rather than examine the facts.

Or maybe we have examined the facts, and still believe this is a terrible idea.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#285

Post by michaelmrose »

staunch wrote: post #258
ekianjo wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lobbying is just a legal form of corruption. Ban it, and it will still continue to exist underground anyway. What we need is to stop voting for idiot politicians.

What about creating a "Direct Democracy Lobbying Group" that lets citizens donate/vote online on issues and then (legally) bribes the appropriate people with total transparency? The depressing thing about most bribery is how small the amounts of money are. Politicians take bribes in the form of campaign financing because they want to stay in power. It's easy for them to rationalize if they think they're serving the g…

The rich people and companies have more money than we have all we could do is slightly raise the stakes and still lose.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#286

Post by gonehome »

a1369209993 wrote: post #268
gonehome wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, no - you need to expand on the why in order to have some sort of substantive discussion (especially when using politically loaded language). Lobbying in its positive form is about experts trying to explain things to representatives that don't understand the specifics of the field. When done right a representative should get perspective from different areas and be able to understand the issues/regulations…

> you need to expand on the why The US Constitution defines treason thus: > Treason against the United States, shall consist [...] in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. If you assume the US is a democracy[0], ie that its enemies are the enemies of its citizens , rather than its nobility^Wgovernment, then any politician who passes laws at the request of (or otherwise Aids and Comforts) eg Facebook…

This is a dramatic oversimplification and somewhat beside the point.

The US is a republic/representative democracy, but that aside working with organizations to pass laws isn't zero sum - laws can be good for organizations and the public. If Google is lobbying to prevent the government from passing key escrow laws that weaken encryption that's better for everyone.

These companies are also made up of citizens and a part of the society (not enemies of the government or the people) - working with experts in the field to try and understand things better isn't 'de facto treason'.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#287

Post by jdietrich »

rayiner wrote: post #262
hanniabu wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to the US lobbying system, where science, ethics, and morals take a backseat to agendas of those with the deepest pockets.

The unhinged emotional reaction to asbestos in this thread is a good example of why lobbying is important. There is a cost-benefit analysis to be done for products containing asbestos, just like for any other product. Lobbyists present that analysis to the regulator. The alternative is regulation by knee jerk reaction, which undermines to point of regulatory agencies.

Every lobbyist is going to present an analysis that concludes "our client's product is the best thing since sliced bread". They commission dodgy research, they fudge figures, they gloss over unflattering facts and emphasise others, because that's their job.

Regulators in other developed nations have concluded that while asbestos may have some marginal advantages in certain use-cases, the externalities are immensely expensive. There are plenty of good, cheap, safe substitutes for asbestos.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#289

Post by cf498 »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #257
prolikewh0a wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they didn't see a viable candidate that represented their interests and decided to abstain. This is a legal right.

Your interests are going to be represented by one of the two major party candidates, whether you like it or not. And even if you're firmly on the side of "do not like," one of those candidates is almost certainly going to be less worse than the other. Maybe you think both of them have authoritarian tendencies, but only one of them openly talks about the press as the enemy of the people and tacitly encourages their fo…

If you are voting for someone in a representative system they are acting in your name and their action are your responsibility. Not to mention that you give legitimacy to such a system by participating in it and help it to perpetuate itself.

Then again, supporting the lesser evil might be reasonable in some situations, but that doesnt get you out of the responsibility of the actions of the lesser evil.

Voting is a lot like the Trolley problem.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#290

Post by dang »

ericb wrote: post #229
dang wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't post unsubstantive comments.

Would "should be considered" be more appropriate wording and less hyperbolic? I'm being serious. I think cash contributions for legislation fundamentally subvert our democracy, and my comment was intended to raise that point for discussion. I don't see discussion of the perversion of democracy as unsubstantive.

A substantive comment is one that contains information that people can learn from. Your comment I replied to was just name-calling.
Post reply on HN