SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (44423)7/28/2010 5:13:53 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
Hey... there is no need to go all the way back to (since replaced) looser language. Especially as I've already amended my comment to change it's description of this liability boon for off-shore oil drilling outfits so as to call it a "lesser incentive", and not any kind of huge incentive.

(Unless you just can't get enough of arguing that is... and so feel impelled to go back and back and re-chew over old ground, long abandoned. ;-)

But as far as THIS goes: "it doesn't equal a tax payer assumption of liability risk"

THAT is flat-out incorrect.

(Unless perhaps you would also think the same strange thing if we put a cap on liability payments that could be assessed against physicians in malpractice law suits, but allowed the plaintiffs potential recoveries in such suits to remain *un-capped*... passing the blue-sky upside risk of those judgments over to the taxpayers? Or in the case of the Price-Anderson Act where we have done the EXACT SAME THING: had the taxpayers ASSUME the risk from the nuclear power industry of any potential damages above the statutory amount in the event of a melt-down....)

NO WAY IN HELL are those 'not a taxpayer assumption of liability risk'.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext