Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stribe30 who wrote (133705)	2/28/2001 12:46:39 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1570739

Money was involved all right.. these groups - to me anyways - sounded like they didnt want to go to the effort of having to lose some of their profits in order to clamp down on pollution... they wanted to remove the fear of a policing agent looking at them to make sure they complied. IF the rejected standard was "no regulations can be passed which decrease corporate profits", then I am in full support of the decision. If however it was that only health effects will be considered then I disagree. There has to be some sort of balance. The costs of regulations, including lost profits, should be considered. That does not mean that you can't decide that the health benefit in a certain case far outweighs the cost, merely that the cost should be considered. If cost can not be considered as a factor you could have (and I think in some cases we probably do have) regulations that have very large costs for minimal (or possibly even zero) health benefit. Tim