51–60 of 150 posts
So, how radioactiove exactly it is ? I suppose it's the very bad kind of radioactive too, since water can easily be ingested ?
I'm guessing "not very radioactive" https://weather.com/news/news/2021-04-03-leak-at-florida-pho... > Hopes said Saturday afternoon that snook live in the pond that is in danger of collapsing and he has seen ducks swimming on top of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When state officials hit the company with a multimillion-dollar fine for the damage done, it declared bankruptcy and shut down. This makes me furious. The employees and directors all go about their lives elsewhere with nary a scratch despite causing such a disaster. This is the problem with capitalism. Privatize profits, socialize losses. The only solution is to force companies to put up bonds or insurance sufficie…
This seems like mostly schadenfreude. What does it matter to you if they pay or we all do, assuming that we have more than enough as a society to pay for it, i.e. the benefits of capitalism outweigh the losses. The only impact is potential moral hazard, but that could be prevented with loss of licenses, etc.
Because when you know you'll be held personally responsible, you'll act accordingly. If you feel like you can act any way you want without repercussion, then you'll automatically take more risks. Usually this is the way we justify the salaries of CEOs as well, "they are the ultimate responsible for everything in the company, so high salary is needed for that big risk".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When state officials hit the company with a multimillion-dollar fine for the damage done, it declared bankruptcy and shut down. This makes me furious. The employees and directors all go about their lives elsewhere with nary a scratch despite causing such a disaster. This is the problem with capitalism. Privatize profits, socialize losses. The only solution is to force companies to put up bonds or insurance sufficie…
This seems like mostly schadenfreude. What does it matter to you if they pay or we all do, assuming that we have more than enough as a society to pay for it, i.e. the benefits of capitalism outweigh the losses. The only impact is potential moral hazard, but that could be prevented with loss of licenses, etc.
So, how radioactiove exactly it is ? I suppose it's the very bad kind of radioactive too, since water can easily be ingested ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Yeah, I think people conflate 'capitalism' and 'insufficient regulation'. Capitalism is a framework that requires regulation, even more so than communism or socialism, since the regulations are what defines how the markets work.
Results of a leak that happened in 1997: "amid heavy rains, a dam broke atop one of two gypsum stacks at the Mulberry Phosphates plant on State Road 60, unleashing a 56-million gallon spill of the acidic wastewater into the Alafia River. The pollution killed everything in its path for 42 miles, eventually rolling into Hillsborough Bay. The death toll included more than 1 million baitfish and shellfish and 72,900 game…
> When state officials hit the company with a multimillion-dollar fine for the damage done, it declared bankruptcy and shut down. This makes me furious. The employees and directors all go about their lives elsewhere with nary a scratch despite causing such a disaster. This is the problem with capitalism. Privatize profits, socialize losses. The only solution is to force companies to put up bonds or insurance sufficie…
Limited liability isn't some surprise side effect of a corporation's legal structure, it is often right there in the name (Ltd, LLC, Pty Ltd, etc).
Yes that structure lets people get away with harmful shenanigans. The system is biased towards optimism. Feature, not bug. The benefits and strengths of this have so far completely outweighed the costs to the point where the argument against limited liability no longer has a leg to stand on.
The bonds and insurance idea is a much better way to play the situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When state officials hit the company with a multimillion-dollar fine for the damage done, it declared bankruptcy and shut down. This makes me furious. The employees and directors all go about their lives elsewhere with nary a scratch despite causing such a disaster. This is the problem with capitalism. Privatize profits, socialize losses. The only solution is to force companies to put up bonds or insurance sufficie…
This seems like mostly schadenfreude. What does it matter to you if they pay or we all do, assuming that we have more than enough as a society to pay for it, i.e. the benefits of capitalism outweigh the losses. The only impact is potential moral hazard, but that could be prevented with loss of licenses, etc.
If someone runs a mine where a leak could cost society $1B, but they personally make $1M off the outputs, that's a huge net negative for society and a huge net positive for the mine owner. The government has lots of money but their capacity to absorb consequences is not infinite. If the actors in question were personally liable, had accurate estimates of risk and loss, and knew they would be personally liable, they would probablt make better decisions. As it is today, they know they can make lots of money and the risk assessment doesn't matter because they can just walk away.
It matters to me because I want people to want to do things that are good for society and also good for them, rather than bad for society and good for them.
We either need to do something like that or find a way to reintroduce morality to amoral, purely fiscally motivated corporations... fixing incentive structures so their fiscal motivations cause them to make better choices seems far easier to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When state officials hit the company with a multimillion-dollar fine for the damage done, it declared bankruptcy and shut down. This makes me furious. The employees and directors all go about their lives elsewhere with nary a scratch despite causing such a disaster. This is the problem with capitalism. Privatize profits, socialize losses. The only solution is to force companies to put up bonds or insurance sufficie…
This seems like mostly schadenfreude. What does it matter to you if they pay or we all do, assuming that we have more than enough as a society to pay for it, i.e. the benefits of capitalism outweigh the losses. The only impact is potential moral hazard, but that could be prevented with loss of licenses, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The owners of Chernobyl (the government) didn't declare bankruptcy and piss off, they spent massive moneys containing the problem. So, socialize profits, socialize losses. Trying to stop catastrophes from happening needs regulation and incentives, both of these things are broken in capitalism by its nature. But its not impossible to have regulation and incentives in either capitalist or socialist projects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The owners of Chernobyl (the government) didn't declare bankruptcy and piss off, they spent massive moneys containing the problem. So, socialize profits, socialize losses. Trying to stop catastrophes from happening needs regulation and incentives, both of these things are broken in capitalism by its nature. But its not impossible to have regulation and incentives in either capitalist or socialist projects.
It now costs huge amounts of money to Belarus, which gov has nothing to do with USSR nuclear projects. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53727243
The European Union gave (and, until now, gives) huge amounts of money in order to contain the problem, for example the sarcophagus. https://time.com/5255663/chernobyl-disaster-book-anniversary...