• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • Is the United States risking their citizen's lives in order to support big businesses?

      "The United States increasingly stands apart from European nations in its approach to regulation. Europe is willing to constrain potentially harmful corporate behavior on a precautionary basis, while the United States requires stronger evidence of danger."

      The United States took its time grounding planes that Europeans had already grounded.

      "Other recent examples of Europe’s more aggressive approach include a ban on the use of pesticides that appeared to be killing bees, prohibitions on the inclusion of some antibiotics in animal feed and restrictions on waste incinerators."

      I wish that the United States would take a world leadership role in taking care of its citizens instead of pandering to big businesses.

    • The common thread I’ve seen lately on both sides of the political aisle is a growing concern with “economic justice.” From the far right, you see the rise of white nationalists who don’t want other groups to take the shrinking number of available jobs. From the far left, you see talk of guaranteed employment. If that trend continues I think you will see a decrease in the power of corporate lobbyists, including in their ability to squash needed regulations and enforcement.

      Unfortunately, in most elections there isn’t enough focus on a candidate’s record in ensuring effective public safety regulations are in place which protect the public without bankrupting the companies affected by them.

    • Requiring stronger evidence is a good thing and very different than pandering to big business. People have made huge mistakes by not requiring strong evidence.

    • Just what would that look like?

      Maybe like New Zealand's response to the terrorist shooting. In less than a week, assault weapons were banned. Compare that to thoughts and prayers.

    • It is the "big business" and lobby situation that I think needs reform most. But I also do think that a bit of wealth redistribution would be beneficial.

    • I think a lot of regulation disparities in safety come down to economic policy. Governments are forced to value the cost of human lives. In fact, there's an economic term for it, value of life.

      Here's some values of life for the US:

      United States
      The following estimates have been applied to the value of life. The estimates are either for one year of additional life or for the statistical value of a single life.

      $50,000 per year of quality life (the "dialysis standard",[27] which had been a de facto international standard most private and government-run health insurance plans worldwide use to determine whether to cover a new medical procedure)[28]
      $129,000 per year of quality life (an update to the "dialysis standard")[29][28]
      $9.1 million (Environmental Protection Agency, 2010)[30]
      $7.9 million (Food and Drug Administration, 2010)[30]
      $9.2 million (Department of Transportation, 2014)[31]
      $9.6 million (Department of Transportation, Aug. 2016)[32]

      An example of value of life would be a railroad crossing a road. Say building a $10 million bridge across the railroad will save an estimated 10 lives by reducing auto/train collisions at the intersection. If the jurisdiction values a life at $1 million or more, they'll build the bridge.

      I'd guess that because different countries (and even organizations in them) have different values of life, that's why the policies differ.

    • Fascinating information. I was not just thinking about the government. I was actually thinking more about big businesses and how they influence government. Lobbyists for big businesses seem to have a whole lot of influence on our political leaders.