> That means removing burdensome and ineffective regulations and having efficient and effective ones.
When we're talking about human lives, there is no regulation too burdensome or inefficient.
And your argument about there being too little competition is a little odd since hundred have been killed in two crashes because of competition.
> It came about because Boeing was trying to avoid the high costs of recertification, so they didn't change things that could have made the plane safer because changing them would have required recertification. So we have "safety regulations" negatively impacting safety by making it move expensive to improve safety than not.
That's absurd! The safety regulations were good, and the reason they didn't work is because the FAA hired Boeing to enforce them and Boeing didn't do so. Boeing only managed to flout the regulations because they fraudulently signed off their own planes as being airworthy. And the only reason Boeing got away with this is because they controlled the people in the FAA.
Your argument appears to be that Boeing cheated to get around the regulations, so it would be better if there were no regulations, because then Boeing wouldn't have to cheat. American capitalists are truly a special breed of human.
"When we're talking about human lives, there is no regulation too burdensome or inefficient."
This is not only not true, it directly contradicts how regulations are evaluated. Regulations are judged at the cost per life saved (or similar metrics), and are rejected if that cost is above some threshold.
When we're talking about human lives, there is no regulation too burdensome or inefficient.
And your argument about there being too little competition is a little odd since hundred have been killed in two crashes because of competition.
> It came about because Boeing was trying to avoid the high costs of recertification, so they didn't change things that could have made the plane safer because changing them would have required recertification. So we have "safety regulations" negatively impacting safety by making it move expensive to improve safety than not.
That's absurd! The safety regulations were good, and the reason they didn't work is because the FAA hired Boeing to enforce them and Boeing didn't do so. Boeing only managed to flout the regulations because they fraudulently signed off their own planes as being airworthy. And the only reason Boeing got away with this is because they controlled the people in the FAA.
Your argument appears to be that Boeing cheated to get around the regulations, so it would be better if there were no regulations, because then Boeing wouldn't have to cheat. American capitalists are truly a special breed of human.