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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (90397)	4/5/2003 7:12:11 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<The problem is enlightening employers so that they are not careless nor so greedy that they neglect safety. Or else giving up the illusion that the invisible hand works benevolent wonders while maximizing self interest.> Enlightening employers is best done with a piece of 4 x 2. The invisible hand does work, but protection of public goods [oceans, spectrum, air, forests, roads and against risk, "Ooops, sorry, our nuclear power plant blew up", is essential]. Also, protection against fraud including implied safety when there is none is a good idea. I quite liked the idea of companies like BP being liable for stuff they should know about. Lead in petrol has caused megadamage to brains over half a century. Only a small amount individually and not demonstrable on an individual basis, but absolutely provable on a population basis and the cost of the damage is in the $1000s per person [in the rich countries anyway]. If I was a lawyer, I'd consider a dirty great class action suit against Associated Octel and other wanton promoters of lead in petrol, including BP and others who didn't take action to protect the innocent. Companies who know, or should know, better expose people to hazards without the victim's knowledge. That's fraudulent. Imposing a duty of care on employers and those in a position to know doesn't block invisible hands. QUALCOMM for example, should prove the risk levels of phones they produce. If the risk is too low to measure, that risk should be quantified as being 'below such and such a level'. Unskilled labourers have public value and they deserve public protection. A country's military, police and judicial protections aren't just for the landed gentry and skilled employees. Not in civilized countries anyway. This is a hot button for me, so I'd better drop it! Mqurice