Results 1 to 10 of 56
Threaded View
-
06-04-2010, 10:25 PM #9
Simply put, it's all about regulations and cost cutting...implementing preventive measures requires $$ and capital and political will power (that's a loaded one these days as polls dictate what policies and regulations are cool or not cool)...that translates into higher prices for consumers down the road. You think we should have learned something from the Exxon Valdez incident of the late 80's.
The "what if" questions are logical and I can bet you my year's salary that they HAVE thought about it.
But the way they have thought about it is in the context of: What if there's a disaster and we had to pay for it? can we get away with it long enough to make enough from the way things are before settling/paying?
If they can long enough, the profit margins are astronomical and payout pale in comparison.
What they do though is the following:
They have a team of attorneys/risk analysts sit around the table and think of the worst case scenarios and the costs that they will be required to pay by government.
They also assess how much profit they will rake in for how many years before a disaster like this came to fruition and it's likelihood
The balance of the equation will dictate profits (after penalties) that co will keep
Having been in the drug business (and NO, not the illegal kind- I mean pharmaceuticals, biologicals), I can tell you that this is not much different to what happened with VIOX (Merck)...if you remember, the drug that caused heart attacks and death... Even though Merck ended up settling a class action law suit, they knew the risks full well...even some of their scientists (some, my good friends) sounded the bells saying that Viox needs further testing, they were ignored or canned...Money, not science was in the driver's sit.
-Robert
Last edited by BladeRunner001; 06-05-2010 at 12:29 AM.
-
The Following User Says Thank You to BladeRunner001 For This Useful Post:
nun2sharp (06-04-2010)