5 ms·

Nationalizing is an overreach. This is why events like this have to be downplayed because if you don’t the vultures will swoop in with their own agendas and try

by xwdv 4y ago

Nationalizing is an overreach. This is why events like this have to be downplayed because if you don’t the vultures will swoop in with their own agendas and try to stir up emotions to garner support for unpopular causes.

unethical_ban 4y ago
[flagged]
- kneebonian 4y ago
  Well given the way they've been running Amtrack I don't trust their ability to run shipping.
- TechBro8615 4y ago
  It's confusing to me why you think nationalizing the rail company would solve any problem. The government can't even keep us safe when it's telling the rail company what to do. In fact, the issue here doesn't seem to be "rail company not listening to government" so much as "government not listening to rail workers." So you think that same government - which just legislatively forced those workers back to work - can run the rail company, while complying with all the same (and new) regulations, and also not turning it into a loss-making operation funded by taxpayers in perpetuity (or at least as long as the country/economy still exists)?
Sakos 4y ago
[flagged]
- MrOwnPut 4y ago
  Airlines are regulated heavily and safe without nationalizing / seizing ownership.
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    Airline accidents kill hundreds of people outright. The media gives those stories tons of attention (If it bleeds, it leads) and accordingly the airline industry knows it must take safety seriously to protect their profits. Meanwhile the chemical industry kill the gods only know how many thousands of people over the course of decades with a steady trickle of statistically correlated illnesses, but the media doesn't cover it and the consumers of chemical goods feel insulated from harm which seems very abstract and indirect to them. A consumer buying a chemical good is not directly imperiled by the chemical industry in the same way as an airline flier is threatened by airline crashes. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why the airline industry is better at safety than the chemical industry.
    - MrOwnPut 4y ago
      Yes I agree, that was my point. Though I was comparing train derailments overall, not chemical spills. Chemicals are needed for society. Nationalizing trains will not help. Nationalizing chemical transfers won't help either if it's the same EPA in charge that said 9/11 debris was safe or this spill was okay. Heavier regulations on trains may be needed, especially when transferring hazardous loads, but nationalization would be horrendous. All that be said, investing in pipelines is a much safer form of transfer for these chemicals. Trains are too risky.

by xwdv 4y ago

unethical_ban 4y ago

[flagged]

kneebonian 4y ago
Well given the way they've been running Amtrack I don't trust their ability to run shipping.
TechBro8615 4y ago
It's confusing to me why you think nationalizing the rail company would solve any problem. The government can't even keep us safe when it's telling the rail company what to do. In fact, the issue here doesn't seem to be "rail company not listening to government" so much as "government not listening to rail workers." So you think that same government - which just legislatively forced those workers back to work - can run the rail company, while complying with all the same (and new) regulations, and also not turning it into a loss-making operation funded by taxpayers in perpetuity (or at least as long as the country/economy still exists)?

Sakos 4y ago

[flagged]

MrOwnPut 4y ago
Airlines are regulated heavily and safe without nationalizing / seizing ownership.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  Airline accidents kill hundreds of people outright. The media gives those stories tons of attention (If it bleeds, it leads) and accordingly the airline industry knows it must take safety seriously to protect their profits. Meanwhile the chemical industry kill the gods only know how many thousands of people over the course of decades with a steady trickle of statistically correlated illnesses, but the media doesn't cover it and the consumers of chemical goods feel insulated from harm which seems very abstract and indirect to them. A consumer buying a chemical good is not directly imperiled by the chemical industry in the same way as an airline flier is threatened by airline crashes. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why the airline industry is better at safety than the chemical industry.
  - MrOwnPut 4y ago
    Yes I agree, that was my point. Though I was comparing train derailments overall, not chemical spills. Chemicals are needed for society. Nationalizing trains will not help. Nationalizing chemical transfers won't help either if it's the same EPA in charge that said 9/11 debris was safe or this spill was okay. Heavier regulations on trains may be needed, especially when transferring hazardous loads, but nationalization would be horrendous. All that be said, investing in pipelines is a much safer form of transfer for these chemicals. Trains are too risky.