So you're saying his beliefs were clear. I agree with you. And, sure enough, the majority of Americans voted for him. Was that in spite of, or because of, his clear beliefs?
Accidents need insurance if acts of God or otherwise. The Government must of felt there was enough regulation to give permits to drill. Now we find out the Government hasn't been to proper inspections. This puts both the oil companies and the public at risk. What happens to the government after an accident, nothing, maybe a job or two gets lost, zero financial liability. You keep thinking a corporation will just fold up and close it doors when something happens. It takes decades to build a market and tens of thousands of employees to build a company. A corporation wants to survive and grow ,make more money, not self destruct. Why all the court fights? Because of Government regulations allow for transfer of risk away from private industry to the public ,such as liability caps. Remove regulations and Big oil will play clean knowing there is no fight to avoid damages.
Who gave the initial permits to drill? Under which regime? Clearly the regulators failed on this one, the same way the security failed on 9/11. I haven't read any oil experts who think this was an act of God... Would no regulation have been better? Would private regulation by independent contractors BP hired have been any better? Would private regulation by independent contracts hired by the government, sponsored by a tax on the oil BP drilled be the answer? When it comes to corporations, corporations have been shown over and over again to run the numbers on surviving a disaster, and they don't spend the money on safety first, they spend the money on lawyers to stall the process in the courts for as long as possible. Corporations put out products they know to be unsafe (cigarette makers, drug companies, etc.). BP and other drillers push the envelope driven by profits, and with the lobby money they have they get the pols to limit the payout in the event of a disaster... Exxon didn't restore Alaska to its previous state before the Valdez, they fought and continue to fight the proper restoration of Alaska... When are you kind going to finally come clean and admit that greed is not a virtue, it is a sin condemned by the God of Abraham and his son Jesus Christ...
Yes, we want to make sure the government doesn't force insurance companies to underwrite gre4ater risks then they choose to take. What that means is Insurance companies will only choose well run careful corporations to underwrite. There are other ways to protect consumers. Now days social networking will begin to have great influence of the decisions of the consumer. Watch companies start to conform to public opinion to maintain its market share. The days of government interference are beginning to end. main reason is that they suck at it. Seems like the government only does its job after mistakes happen.
The permits were issued by unionized career government employees and they assume no risk if they fail to follow procedures. Regulation should be done by those who risk money if they skate on the procedures. Insurance companies will take huge losses if they don't force BP to follow safety procedures. A government bureaucrat could really care less and is much easier to buy off.
How do you explain how BP gets a limit of liability from the government? You blame the unionized career government employees?
Yes and approved by Congress. I don't like it. There is another point of view. Some feel that the public should have stake in the risk of production. Government tax breaks for employee health care is a good example. We all sacrifice tax receipts so that corporations can afford and offer healthcare for its workers. Because oil is important to the public should the public also share the risk of drilling. Capping liability is one way to shift risk to the general public.