4 ms·

Feels like the process used to write this article was “find a small dollar number related to the derailment and put it next to a big dollar number that isn’t re

• noahtallen 4y ago
  The reason they’re related is that the company reduces cost (remove costly safety equipment, personnel, routines) to increase value to shareholders. If it doesn’t cost very much to do that (7mil), but the gains are very large (7bil), we’ll keep seeing these types of accidents
• gsk22 4y ago
  Oh, come on, you're being willfully ignorant if you believe there is no relation between the two. Sure, the buyback plans were made before the derailment, but the fact that plans haven't change shows how little they care about the victims versus their profits. Even ignoring individual blame, there is the question whether as a society we should allow corporations in general to distribute huge sums of money to their shareholders after a fiscally-significant incident like this. Victims will require compensation, probably for decades. If the company reorganizes or folds in bankruptcy -- which seems somewhat likely -- we the taxpayers will be stuck holding the bag.
  • fwlr 4y ago
    Why would they change their buyback plans in response to an accident that was already priced into their insurance? Handling the accident isn’t going to deplete their 1.1bn insurance policy. This 7m amount is just one of many payments they’ll be making in regards to the derailment.
    • specialist 4y ago
      > Handling the accident isn’t going to deplete their 1.1bn insurance policy. Sure. But maybe $1.1b won't be enough. Postpone the buyback, just in case.