Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Regulations won't stop cancer, they just set the amount of poison you can legally ingest. True liability is the ultimate regulator.
Oh that part I can somewhat agree. Counting rat hairs in peanut butter isn't anyones idea of a good time, however, it has kept plants clean enough to prevent rat poop from entering the food supply. Watering down the efficacy of FDA isn't going to solve anything. The only exception that should be made is for small scale operations like a single cow or vermont cheese that's unpasturized. If it's labeled right there's no need to ban or create cumbersome operational restrictions. When people are unaware of potential danger is when it becomes a problem.
Purist liability would mean abolishing insurance industry as well. How afraid do we want innovators to be? I think a balance has to be struck but the end run around those scales needs severe consequence. Track the history of asbestos/ mesothelioma hindsight being 20/20, and explain how these people could be held fully financially liable if they spent the money up front. Dotted across the American landscape are homes full of asbestos (insulation and siding). What to do about this? Cash for clunkers? How does this apply to firemen exposed?
As for cancer- this dispersant in their spill response plan is the difference between making a bigger mess (exponential liability) and realistically dealing with the problem by capturing/ containing the escaped crude. Dispersants as a practice need to be banned. It's a feel good lie of the mind. Oil doesn't 'go away', it only morphs into other toxic compounds. Dispersants: lesser evil against oil spill or Gulf poison?
I'm going to punctuate my point by saying this as someone retired from career in oil. It CAN, and regularly does, get managed responsibly. Worldwide volume consumption per day without incident is evidence. Once you get ambitious managers/ CFO's interfering with common sense and best business practice, things go to hell in a basket in short order. I wouldn't be alive to tell the tale without those regulations. When it's too profitable to subcontract responsibility to St Elsewhere, that's just what they'll so. And they do.
Owls dont stand a chance,you wouldnt believe the wildlife that comes raining down when these drunks start falling down and passing out still shooting. Sometimes I think i'm gonna quit this work and maybe work in a slaughter house and get a steady paycheck for the work I love but I need to go to Mexico and get a fake i d and it is so dangerous there now I am not so sure
The Feds stepped in because the free market did speak, the insurance companies refused to write insurance above $60 million. General Electric said they would not build the plants unless the government protected them.
Banks will not loan on the building of Nuclear plants so the government guaranteed loans for billions just last year alone.
The free market is screaming loud and clear.
If what you say is true then we should let the nuclear industry go out of business. Of course, it isn't true.
If the feds got out of the nuclear industry all together, no more subsidies, insurance or regualtion, prices would drop. Probably like 2-4 times as cheap.
GE got the feds to protect them so GE could save money. At taxpayers expense. Banks won't loan because of all the hassles it takes (Govt regulation) to build a plant. This can be verified by the fact that we haven't built one since the 1970s.
The feds have been heavily involved in the nuclear industry since its inception. There is no way you can say the free market can't produce nuclear power cheaper because we never allowed it to try.
Everything the free market is allowed to produce is cheaper and more efficient than when the government is involved. Everything. Doesn't matter what it is. So it is safe to assume the nuclear industry can do the same.
P.S. What you are doing is pointing out examples where the government has injected itself in areas in doesn't belong, made things worse and blaming it's failures on the free market. It's typical of Statists. Blaming capitalism for socialism failures.
Corporate spnsors are not the only sponsors especially since it was set up by one of the Koch brothers and continues to be primarially funded by one of the Koch brothers. He literally owns dozens of these astroturf groups so it isn't any wonder that a guy who owns half of the largest privately owned oil company in the country bad mouths everything which isn't oil or natural gas (which the guy's boss just so happens to be in the business of selling). This is pure and simple paid advocacy from a special interest and as such should be taken with a grain of salt.
They can be built without government subsidies and they can be done cheaper and better.
Anyone that says differently is not paying attention.
Well if they can be, the industry has not demonstrated it. Between the tax credits, tax write offs, advanced depreciation schedules and so forth, this industry as well as oil, coal, gas and so forth set a good example of the GOP mantra: capitalism for workers, socialism for corporations.
If Nuclear power is so cheap and the best solution why can't they be built and maintained without government subsidies?
The government (we the people) guarantee the loans to build the plants or the banks would not lend. We also limit the liability of the plant in case of a major problem. Take away government and the true cost skyrockets.
I assume you also oppose the GM bail out and solar panel subsidies......
And I like your "take away government" comment. If the free market will not build nuclear plants and solar panels, we shouldn't build them.
If Nuclear power is so cheap and the best solution why can't they be built and maintained without government subsidies?
The government (we the people) guarantee the loans to build the plants or the banks would not lend. We also limit the liability of the plant in case of a major problem. Take away government and the true cost skyrockets.
Here is a good interview with Cato's Jerry Taylor about Nuclear power and other forms of power.
If what you say is true then we should let the nuclear industry go out of business. Of course, it isn't true..
We should let them be liable for themselves. Prove that the Price Anderson act does not exist and loan guarantees don't happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest
If the feds got out of the nuclear industry all together, no more subsidies, insurance or regualtion, prices would drop. Probably like 2-4 times as cheap. .
How would prices drop if they had to pay market rates for loans and pay for billions in liability insurance or hold billions in reserves? I am not for regulation either, I want them to be liable from the corporate charter level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest
GE got the feds to protect them so GE could save money. At taxpayers expense. Banks won't loan because of all the hassles it takes (Govt regulation) to build a plant. This can be verified by the fact that we haven't built one since the 1970s..
"Under the loan-guarantee program, the government promises to assume a company's debt obligations if it defaults on debt incurred for the projects. Because new nuclear reactors cost billions of dollars to develop, the loan guarantees can be a key step for energy companies that plan to undertake such projects."
The feds have been heavily involved in the nuclear industry since its inception. There is no way you can say the free market can't produce nuclear power cheaper because we never allowed it to try.
The free market assumes and covers liability. Passing the buck is not free markets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest
Everything the free market is allowed to produce is cheaper and more efficient than when the government is involved. Everything. Doesn't matter what it is. So it is safe to assume the nuclear industry can do the same.
P.S. What you are doing is pointing out examples where the government has injected itself in areas in doesn't belong, made things worse and blaming it's failures on the free market. It's typical of Statists. Blaming capitalism for socialism failures.
I agree, if free markets are allowed to be free, which includes covering all liability I would say some if not most businesses would come in cheaper. The problem comes in when we have areas of unlimited liability such as nuclear, the choices is either have the government protect them or charge them an insurance fee. If they can produce energy for less even with the additional cost it would be great.
Freedom does not mean freedom from being liable.
Where did I blame anything on capitalism? I am much more free market than you even dream of. Nice try deflecting the issue off of the issues and on to an individual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oerdin
Corporate spnsors are not the only sponsors especially since it was set up by one of the Koch brothers and continues to be primarially funded by one of the Koch brothers. He literally owns dozens of these astroturf groups so it isn't any wonder that a guy who owns half of the largest privately owned oil company in the country bad mouths everything which isn't oil or natural gas (which the guy's boss just so happens to be in the business of selling). This is pure and simple paid advocacy from a special interest and as such should be taken with a grain of salt.
That may be true, does it mean all of the information is false? Under that assumption we can say all of the George Soros funded examples are false. I take information and verify it as best I can. I am no fan of Koch or Soros, they both have an agenda but they also both come up with some good information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newhandle
Well if they can be, the industry has not demonstrated it. Between the tax credits, tax write offs, advanced depreciation schedules and so forth, this industry as well as oil, coal, gas and so forth set a good example of the GOP mantra: capitalism for workers, socialism for corporations.
Exactly!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
I assume you also oppose the GM bail out and solar panel subsidies......
And I like your "take away government" comment. If the free market will not build nuclear plants and solar panels, we shouldn't build them.
Exactly! In the Vid he says the same thing. If an industry can't cover it's liability or true cost, it should no be built.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
ALL energy gets subsidized. You could say the same thing about solar. If it is so good why subsidize it?
I agree, I wish they would not subsidizes any energy.
If Nuclear power is so cheap and the best solution why can't they be built and maintained without government subsidies?
The government (we the people) guarantee the loans to build the plants or the banks would not lend. We also limit the liability of the plant in case of a major problem. Take away government and the true cost skyrockets.
Here is a good interview with Cato's Jerry Taylor about Nuclear power and other forms of power.
we have seen innovation with small nuclear power modules that generate 25MW.
Small & Modular nuclear power Reactors (SMRs)
That “smaller solution” is the category of power reactors known as Small & Modular nuclear power Reactors (SMRs). The history of SMRs is about as long as the commercial use of large nuclear power plants. The fuels and technology included in today’s SMR designs have been studied for over 50 years, and some units went online decades ago. SMRs provide the benefits of larger nuclear power plants – clean, continuous, reliable energy with no greenhouse gas emissions – yet they require very little space in which to operate. SMRs can be transported to sites and engaged
Hyperion Power Generation (http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/product.html - broken link)
Most regulations are nothing more than compromises between corporations and government, hence why I don't really favor them in the first place. Start from the beginning at the charter level and it would be a better way to go.
Those compromises aren't horrible until the government itself doesn't bother doing homework and leans on lobbyists for ready made answers. Theory: Obama's backtracking on transparency and policy regarding lobbyists occurred because he sees them running the show more than elected officials are running it. This is dangerous and makes mockery of democratic process.
I'd need to see a better picture of that charter level to throw my weight behind it. That's been a criticism that's gone unanswered by those I consider true libertarians. I like Ron Paul but it's not possible to follow a leader without a plan. He needs to step up with that plan in straightforward fashion. If I vote against it I'm not voting against libertarians or him, but having issues with his plan. Having no party allegiance my ear is open, but it still gets abused by those not in service to meritocracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi
I see your points I just don't agree fully.
You'll have to specify why. That's where we all get a chance to improve. Discussions in this forum are not about zero sum games to me. It's about uncovering higher levels of truth so that better solutions might prevail. No one is above reproach. Not even myself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
