←back to thread

U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated

(www.ishn.com)
386 points z991 | 4 comments | 23 Jun 25 23:53 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
pixl97 ◴[24 Jun 25 00:46 UTC] No.44361760[source]▶
Save lives?: X

Increase safety?: X

Make more money?: YES

The USCSB makes life safer for everyone in this country, especially people that work around potentially dangerous chemicals and pressurized equipment.

replies(3): >>44361855 #>>44361918 #>>44362002 #
api ◴[24 Jun 25 01:00 UTC] No.44361855[source]▶
I wouldn't be surprised if this doesn't actually save any money or make anyone much more money. It's just a result of mindlessly fetishizing the past and misattributing past periods of rapid industrial growth to lack of regulation. The real cause was rapid population growth at the time, war, and extremely rapid adoption of bedrock industrial age technologies like electricity.

Today we have a fully deployed modern infrastructure and slow to negative population growth. Cutting regulation won't change that.

replies(3): >>44361906 #>>44361930 #>>44361990 #
fallingknife ◴[24 Jun 25 01:25 UTC] No.44361990[source]▶
I don't really buy this since China has industrialized rapidly without much population growth at all. They have built infrastructure like high speed rail that we are unable to build in the US, so I also don't buy the "fully deployed modern infrastructure" line.
replies(2): >>44362057 #>>44364009 #
danparsonson ◴[24 Jun 25 01:35 UTC] No.44362057{3}[source]▶
Yeah but their starting point was different again - they already had the population, and were able to piggy back on technological progress from other countries by borrowing or stealing it. The other thing they have is an authoritarian government; a country can achieve a lot in a short time when it can freely sideline the concerns and needs of its citizens.
replies(1): >>44362091 #
1. cayley_graph ◴[24 Jun 25 01:44 UTC] No.44362091{4}[source]▶
I'm not a China defender, but sidelining the concerns and needs of its citizens isn't why China is able to do things like high speed rail or build high density infrastructure in general. Lots there view having their property taken by the government and relocated as a good thing, because it almost always happens way above market rates. There are exceptions, of course, but my impression is that it is not the norm. Feel free to correct me. This isn't a defense of China in general, but it is totally possible to have good public transit in the United States.

And mind you that China isn't unique in bootstrapping its industrial revolution by mass theft of IP. If I were you, I'd look into the stunts us Americans pulled during our industrialization. The sad fact of the matter is that the government of this country no longer works for its own people, and that's why so many things are far below par. For many things, we _could_, but simply _don't_.

replies(3): >>44362994 #>>44364343 #>>44364362 #
2. grumpy-de-sre ◴[24 Jun 25 05:06 UTC] No.44362994[source]▶
I always liked the bit where they often compensate folks not directly financially but rather with a generous share in what they are building. Eg. the building containing your one bedroom apartment gets torn down by developers and as compensation they offer you a three bedroom apartment in the new building.

Definitely plays an interesting role in combating/moderating NIMBYism.

3. winrid ◴[24 Jun 25 09:35 UTC] No.44364343[source]▶
In my personal experience with in-laws in China you're correct (got fully compensated + given a nicer house). Another family, when they were laid off from their government jobs, were given the option of cash or office space and storage for like 30yrs to run their own business...
4. danparsonson ◴[24 Jun 25 09:38 UTC] No.44364362[source]▶
Nothing really to disagree with here tbh; I didn't mean to say that authoritarianism was the reason for everything they've achieved, but rather that it greases the wheels so to speak.

I was really just responding to the discussion that ensued when an earlier commenter said that poor regulation was not the reason the US modernised rapidly but rather population growth and post war economics, and another responded with China as a counter example to that, my point being that China's situation was much different than the US so it's not really a useful comparison.

I am neither a defender of China, nor the US ;-)