<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 03:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 16 2008, 01:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Some regulations are good, some are bad. If there weren't rules against Abestos, DDT, Lead in gasoline, Lead paint, regulations on removal of poisonous chemicals that could contaminate water supplies, etc. Then I'm sure there would be some companies that would cut corners if needed.</div> I'm with you on this. Hell, I've seen the worst case scenario in an unregulated, developing country like India. Like most issues, the moderate middle ground between two extremes makes the most sense. </div> No regulations are needed. If you get cancer from Asbestos or lead poisoning, you sue. Corporations are REALLY scared of lots of lawsuits. </div> In most cases, the victimized people are those that lack the resources to even consider a lawsuit. India's a really good example because its reached one extreme (ridiculous government intervention in the 70's/80's that just alienated and f'd up entire regions) as well as the other (complete lack of control that's created growth at the expense of the poor, with the majority of the country not even seeing its dividends).
Here in the USA, it's hard not to find a lawyer who'd sue a giant deep pockets corporation for $billions worth of contingency fees.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 04:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Here in the USA, it's hard not to find a lawyer who'd sue a giant deep pockets corporation for $billions worth of contingency fees.</div> I remember the Beef mentioned a situation where the exact opposite was happening. The best lawyer was affiliated with the rich hospital and no other lawyer in town would even give his case a shot.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 16 2008, 02:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 04:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Here in the USA, it's hard not to find a lawyer who'd sue a giant deep pockets corporation for $billions worth of contingency fees.</div> I remember the Beef mentioned a situation where the exact opposite was happening. The best lawyer was affiliated with the rich hospital and no other lawyer in town would even give his case a shot. </div> I think the lawyers are evaluating their chances of winning and think it's a loser case. When anyone sues a big corporation, they're going up against the best lawyers money can buy, right?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 04:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 16 2008, 02:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 04:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Here in the USA, it's hard not to find a lawyer who'd sue a giant deep pockets corporation for $billions worth of contingency fees.</div> I remember the Beef mentioned a situation where the exact opposite was happening. The best lawyer was affiliated with the rich hospital and no other lawyer in town would even give his case a shot. </div> I think the lawyers are evaluating their chances of winning and think it's a loser case. When anyone sues a big corporation, they're going up against the best lawyers money can buy, right? </div> Idunno, it seemed like a pretty legitimate case to me. The way he mentioned it, it seemed like the other lawyers were just wary of going up against the best in town.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 04:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 16 2008, 01:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Some regulations are good, some are bad. If there weren't rules against Abestos, DDT, Lead in gasoline, Lead paint, regulations on removal of poisonous chemicals that could contaminate water supplies, etc. Then I'm sure there would be some companies that would cut corners if needed.</div> I'm with you on this. Hell, I've seen the worst case scenario in an unregulated, developing country like India. Like most issues, the moderate middle ground between two extremes makes the most sense. </div> No regulations are needed. If you get cancer from Asbestos or lead poisoning, you sue. Corporations are REALLY scared of lots of lawsuits. </div> Well Sometimes it would be corporations, sometimes it could be individual poor farmers using DDT to increase crop yields. Individual contractors using Asbestos, a landlord using lead paint. Sometimes I wouldn't be surprized that the people who get cancer or die or get ill have no idea what caused it. As well something like DDT can mess up the environment pretty good.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jul 16 2008, 05:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Sometimes I wouldn't be surprized that the people who get cancer or die or get ill have no idea what caused it. As well something like DDT can mess up the environment pretty good.</div> It's all California's fault. Blame California. Because California has such aggressive regulation, they are causing other states to take on the burden of keeping DDT and asbestos within their own states. They are causing this pollution in middle america, and it is causing widespread sickness across the country.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 16 2008, 07:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jul 16 2008, 05:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Sometimes I wouldn't be surprized that the people who get cancer or die or get ill have no idea what caused it. As well something like DDT can mess up the environment pretty good.</div> It's all California's fault. Blame California. Because California has such aggressive regulation, they are causing other states to take on the burden of keeping DDT and asbestos within their own states. They are causing this pollution in middle america, and it is causing widespread sickness across the country. </div> huh? I'm not taking Denny's view of "no regulations". My view is that some regulations of dangerous materials and chemicals are needed for the benefit of society. However there can be bad regulations in place no doubt too.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jul 16 2008, 08:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 16 2008, 07:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jul 16 2008, 05:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Sometimes I wouldn't be surprized that the people who get cancer or die or get ill have no idea what caused it. As well something like DDT can mess up the environment pretty good.</div> It's all California's fault. Blame California. Because California has such aggressive regulation, they are causing other states to take on the burden of keeping DDT and asbestos within their own states. They are causing this pollution in middle america, and it is causing widespread sickness across the country. </div> huh? I'm not taking Denny's view of "no regulations". My view is that some regulations of dangerous materials and chemicals are needed for the benefit of society. However there can be bad regulations in place no doubt too. </div> I was kidding.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 16 2008, 09:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I was kidding.</div> I know, just usually people use sarcasm when they disagree with a person lol.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider)</div><div class='quotemain'>Well, lets broaden it a bit. I know that China is polluting as much as any country in the world. Their air pollution is reaching us all the way on the California coast. What can we do about it? Not much really.</div> Damn jet stream.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 16 2008, 05:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jul 16 2008, 05:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Sometimes I wouldn't be surprized that the people who get cancer or die or get ill have no idea what caused it. As well something like DDT can mess up the environment pretty good.</div> It's all California's fault. Blame California. Because California has such aggressive regulation, they are causing other states to take on the burden of keeping DDT and asbestos within their own states. They are causing this pollution in middle america, and it is causing widespread sickness across the country. </div> Actually, <u>South Park</u> has the answer, Blame Canada!.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 16 2008, 04:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jul 16 2008, 05:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Sometimes I wouldn't be surprized that the people who get cancer or die or get ill have no idea what caused it. As well something like DDT can mess up the environment pretty good.</div> It's all California's fault. Blame California. Because California has such aggressive regulation, they are causing other states to take on the burden of keeping DDT and asbestos within their own states. They are causing this pollution in middle america, and it is causing widespread sickness across the country. </div> It's not about blaming California. It's about realizing that to accomplish certain things in one place, there may be costs in some other place. Like when you buy a pair of shoes made by slave labor in some 3rd world country (or China); our economy benefits, you benefit, but there's a cost you probably don't want to consider. Or maybe you don't know if your retirement fund has invested in big oil companies or (oh my goodness!) Halliburton.
