One of the difficulties on the left is the unproven assumption that regulators are wiser and more honest brokers of the public interest than are those in the private sector. To a degree, this is true because the ostensible purpose of their work is that public interest. However, regulation in the United States has a longer history than that in Europe (remember the comparative safety of U.S. and European cars in the 1970's), and over time, regulations in the U.S. have become terrifically and purposely complex, and often a reflection of both the ideology and the power of the regulators rather than a public threat. The lawyers out there should remember the effect of the "Chevron" decision on the expansion of the administrative state.
Meanwhile, on the one hand, armies of corporate attorneys find ways around regulations, focusing on "regulatory capture;" and on the other, the average person, confounded by myriad idiotic regulations and moronic safety labels on a wide variety of innocuous products, just looks the other way, and is legitimately as suspicious of the motives of regulators as of the corporate titans.
The sad effect of this is that for having cried "wolf" far too often to build administrative fiefdoms while at the same time allowing themselves to be corrupted by the objects of their regulation, regulators have diminished their credibility, and thus their ability to respond decisively to real and uncertain danger as that presented by the Boeing 737 MAX 8 and 9.
3
M-O-N-E-Y.
4
Money.
3
The Editorial Board is seriously asking this question?
Maybe money has something to do with it? Ya think?
Oh my lord
7
Umm.... For financial gain
4
$$$
3
Yeah why does it?..hm..hm..is it $$$?
1
Profits over People. Our legislative process is.mainly.one that is bought and.paid.for.by industry lobbyists. The public's health and safety be damned. As evidenced by industry control of the EPA, The FDA and the FCC. We allow poisons in our foods, plastic containers and other contaminants in every day life and building products. Why should we be surprised?
7
Eh, not really, the world isn’t doing much either.ll.ll
Capitalism Über Alles.
Profit Über Alles.
Simple as that.
3
Rape, pillage, and plunder for profit, that's our motto.
We've been giving you the business since 1492.
7
Ill tell you why. Because big corporations run the country with the blessings of the Republicans . Can you say plutocacy? Can you say fascism? Can you say deregulation? Any of these words will do it.
Hopefully an economic collapse will solve it.
6
My goodness, now the Times editorial board has advocated for regulation based on hype and frenzy. Facts and data are for the...well, I don't know who they think they're for, but not regulators.
I'm a professional pilot and examiner. I'll bet you a hot cup of coffee that those pilots reacted incorrectly and crashed those planes because they were startled. I'll further wager that the FAA and Boeing knew that about the Lion Air crash and will find that about the latest crash as well.
Politics is at play here, but it is not the FAA kowtowing to Boeing, it's the FAA not wanting to embarrass the countries where the planes crashed.
Years ago an Egyptian airliner crashed into the sea. The NTSB determined that the copilot committed suicide and killed all aboard in the process. Egypt said the airplane killed them. They say that to this day.
Facts are stubborn things and the NYT takes a hit to its credibility by publishing this editorial.
3
Insurance.
One word... Greed!
2
When the Times published the Pentagon Papers, there was a substantial risk of damage to national security. The newspaper downplayed this risk so they could publish a blockbuster story. When the Times lectures about risk tolerance, its hypocrisy overflows.
1
When the person in the oval office believes a wall will solve all your immigration problems, why do you even wonder about this?
2
Greed!
1
thearm limit
This is the United States of Business - where the consumer gets the shaft.
3
You're joking, right?
One word: GREED
2
Greed.
2
Seriously, NY Editorial Board? Read "Democracy In Chains" by Nancy MacLean. It will make everything clear.
1
Republicans” In God we trust. Everybody else? Money talks”!
3
Isn't it rather obviou$ ?
1
Well, in part the answer is that you New York Times consistently support establishment corporate politicians and the nonsense they peddle.
You undermine attempts to take power back from the donor class. Who do you think they are? What do you expect?
And now you go all 'liberal' and wonder why?
Enough is enough.
It's all about the money, honey.
Risk...is so manly. Testosterone.
Money! We worship it!
Greed
Because money!!!
"making safety decisions based on what we know" is exactly the wrong approach. Corporatocracy putting profits over people. No surprise that McConnell's wife heads the department under which FAA sits.
Daniel Elwell's statement is facetious.
Between Tuesday, when he said there was no data recommending him to ground the planes... and Wednesday when there was still no data to recommend grounding the planes... what happened?
If he truly was using "data-driven" methods... he would have asked whether there is data that proves the planes are safe and should remain flying in the air? There was no such data. The planes should have been grounded earlier.
Dan Elwell was playing with words. He is irresponsible. He is a former lobbyist who worked for American Airlines for decades, and now is an apologist for the miscreant trump.
Elwell put American lives at risk.
And his organization allowed Boeing to self-certify (self-approve) the changes to the Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft, which received certification in 2017 under trump. His organization allowed this dangerous airplane to enter the world... and kill nearly 350 people.
(to date, Boeing sold 371 of these planes, at ~$53 million each... earning them ~$19 billion -- Boeing had a financial reason to sell this untested plane)
$19 billion for 350 lives.
We need MORE regulation in America, to keep us safe from greedy corporations.
3
What you don’t know CAN hurt you. And the FAA actually knew alot. They knew details about the Lion Air crash. They knew about the similarities between the two crashes. They knew the Max8 design was new different engines on an old airframe. They knew about the potentual nose up stall problem and the MCAS system designed to counter that problem. They knew about pilot concerns around the takeoff flight characteristics of the Max8. They knew enough yet did nothing initially to yoe the corporate line which actually made it worse for Boeing. Trust and reputation are precarious virtues ... critical and often absolute. If the FAA and Boeing has caused the flying public to lose trust in the Max8 because of its major unfixable design flaw and because of the fact that its work arounds for that flaw (new engines on old airframe causing potential for stall) make matters worse ... then by accepting a higher level of risk than others, the FAA has caused an order of nagnitude greater risk for Boeing in that the entire company’s existence could now be threatened by the wrongful death lawsuits that are to come.
"Right wing parties in Europe generally are neither as skeptical of science nor as devoted to business as the Republican Party in the United States can be."
Interesting that the authors of this editorial singled out the Republican Party for special mention. The seduction and power of the dollar determines our lives as corporate greed and political power brokers work in tandem. Scarry.
"Follow the money" seems a good answer.
I have a friend who works at the UA flight facility who told me grounding the 737 was a good decision.... I would take his word over the FAA's any day....
2
No risk, no reward. The US is the dominant economic, cultural and military force on the planet. We didn’t achieve that through “an overabundance of caution,” the PC phrase du jour.
My heart is breaking to experience what has happened to our government, bought and paid for by corporations. I am 78 and I am saddened to see that the President of the USA cares little about Americans unless they have a lot of money and can give him what he wants, unbridled power.
We have monopolies occuring every day and no government interference.
We have a President who supports violence against his opponents and Republican senators continue to not hold him accountable ..until they experience his wrath.
We must remove him from office and take a firm stand against homegrown terrorists. We cannot wait until the election. By then , there may be nothing left of our Republic. By then, the white supremacists will have started war on the rest of us.
1
The answer to your question is deregulation and tax cuts. It's the mantra of the republican party and their propaganda outlet,
FOX News. As another commenter on these pages puts it
"profits before people".
2
Blinded, deafened and muted by sheer greed. Some society we are building for our children. SICK !
Deregulated Capitalism corrupts absolutely
The "U.S." is extremely duplicitous. Just look at the way the Justice Department is going after Swiss Banks, which have actually been taken over by Americans like Brady Dougan and "Brits" like Tijane Thiam for US Tax evasion issues or Germany, specifically VOLKSWAGEN for lying about cleanliness efficiency of diesel engines. The "U.S." should join the after American companies for Tax Evasion and agencies like the FDA and the FAA and US Food and Pharma and Airline industry in general for the potential damage done not just to US citizens, but globabally. Europeans don't want chlorated US poultry or genetically manipulated crops.
1
All governments are representative, in a sense. For example, the government of North Korea represents the interests of the Kim family exceedingly well.
Here in the U.S. we have an army of lobbyists who ensure that the concerns of big business are attended to first and foremost, and generally at the expense of everyone else.
A few days ago, the Times published a 1942 letter, written by a doomed naval officer aboard the U.S.S. Wasp to his five-year old son. It is obvious from the tone of letter that he deeply loved his little boy. It is equally clear that he expected his son would, in his every action, consider the well being of others.
What ever happened to that country?
2
Why? Because the US is a capitalist free fire zone and failing empire and thus we should expect no less.
1
The NYT is diplomatic--- to so nicely say that RW EU parties are "not as skeptical of science nor as devoted to business as the US GOP can be.” Can be? No, is.
And why are rw EU parties NOT as devoted to business? Why DON'T they use science skepticism to manipulate voters? Why the difference in attitude?
Why don't EU big businesses force their candidates to kow tow to mega donors for funding to compete in elections? This is what our politicians are forced to do. It’s been legalized by our highest court, equating money with ‘free speech’. Why don’t EU courts rule that political money is protected political speech in a democracy?
Why don't EU countries allow the US style inundations of paid political advertising on media that manipulate American voters, and require mega donor funding?
Per Wikipedia, EU nations actually try to protect their political discourse on media from domination by special interests. Imagine that.
“Science skepticism and devotion to business”---sounds almost respectable--- but it means the GOP is corrupted and manipulating the public. The GOP is tethered to an authoritarian liar, not caring if the citizen majority gets basic representation for its taxation. In that sense it’s un-American according to our professed values.
Can another editorial address what’s behind these contrasts in basic views? With so much impact on the lives of millions---in HC, taxes, jobs, education, guns, etc.
1
From the classic movie Network:
Mr Jensens speech: in a plush drape darkened board room standing at the head of a polished mahogany boardroom table with green and brass lamps at each chair where all the decisions effecting the world making his speech:
"You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it! Is that clear? You think you've merely stopped a business deal. That is not the case! The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back! It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity! It is ecological balance! You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet."
No movie in starker terms expressed the overwhelming powers of these international be-mouths.
And now we have Trump, the most corrupt capitalist in my lifetime, with his hands on the levers of government.
Fate accompli.
2
Short answer to the headline: Because we always have. We've always been a high-risk/high-reward place, right from the get-go. That's who we are as a people.
"Daniel Elwell, the agency’s acting administrator, defended the pace of its decision-making, telling NPR on Thursday, “We’re a data-driven organization. … We make safety decisions based on what we know.”"
Maybe Mr. Elwell will be "concerned" when several thousand people die instead of a few hundred? Or will it take one crash here in the U.S.?
The GOP is more rw than the rw parties in EU democracies, who don't aim to dismantle their generations of HC for all, and replace it with US style high profit as 1st priority.
They don't propagandize voters to think privatizing HC protects their 'freedoms'. Same with carrying guns.
What about govt regulations of social media and internet monopolies to reduce risks for individuals in a democracy?
A past Guardian UK clip--
“Despite the political theatre of Mr. Zuckerberg’s congressional interrogations, Facebook’s business model isn’t at any real risk from regulators in the US.
In Europe, however, the looming General Data Protection Regulation will give people better privacy protections and force companies to make sweeping changes to how they collect data and consent from users – with huge fines for those who don’t comply.”
“It’s changing the balance of power from the giant digital marketing companies to focus on the needs of individuals and democratic society,” said the Center for Digital Democracy. “That’s an incredible breakthrough.”
Yes, a positive breakthrough for safety vs risk for citizens and society. What about Americans and their risks?
1
Simple: greed, collusion,' regulatory capture.'
What does Chernobyl's disaster have to do with European regulations? In 1986 Chernobyl was still part of the USSR.
It is the republicans in congress who refuse to do anything to protect consumers, protect citizens and let corporations write their own laws. This is not the same republican party of 50 years ago. The current members are all bought off, paid for and do not work for America anymore. Time to boot them all out of office. Vote blue in future elections until this current criminal cabal is destroyed. The republican party needs to recreate itself from the ground up. Fox State Republican Propaganda station needs to be rejected and defeated. The people of this country are better than this current disgusting mess.
Corporate America owns Congress. The End.
2
It is very simple. Greed.
It's about FREEDOM! Wait, sorry, it's about money and it's only about money.
You make a simple question complicated. Corporations own the government.
2
One word answer: GREED.
Are you kidding? In America, money talks...all the rest of us pay for it. It only works when you have sufficiently dumbed down your electorate, like the US has and continues to do.
One word. Money. It has become the god of this country and it's unbridled pursuit is destroying us.
Profits before people. It’s the American way.
Because the U.S. Government doesn't care about its citizens.
1
Congress is basically owned by corporate money. Profit is the first name of the country. Profit The United States of America brought to you by ATT,and other large corporations. We want you to prosper but only by our rules not you the people. We know better.
The only time regulations will be taken seriously in this country is when a plane load of republicans goes down, and they are are killed. Rest assured, at that point the regulations would flow thick and heavy, with the regulations the named for dead republicans. Seems they are the only ones they are interested in, not in those they represent.
Before reading the article and to answer to your headline a one word reply is all that is needed; lobbying. Lobbying is a cancer upon the United States and needs to be banned and term limits need to be imposed.
It's the Benjamins...next question...
Sorry to be so blunt, but well, in the US, corporate profit is the main thing, if not the only thing. This explains why in the US, strange and upsetting and inhuman and illogical things are accepted and celebrated by the brain washed public.
The biggest opium war in history, waged on the population by Big Pharma, the medical profession and corrupt politicians is accepted and legal, because the profits (and the campaign donations) are enormous.
The gun violence and gun fetishism epidemic with its obnoxious expressions in assault rifles, bump stocks and the acceptance of the slaughter of thousands of children as "freedom", because the profits (and the campaign donations) are enormous.
Just a couple of examples. But, if the population has been brain washed to think that a government by the people, for the people, of the people is bad socialism and walking to the slaughter bench praising your butcher is good and "freedom", there is not much hope.
20
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
3
Delay, delay, delay = profits, more profits, and extreme profits until the lawyers kick in, then bankruptcy!
9
These were perfectly airworthy 737s that crashed. The pilots did not receive adequate training on the MAX upgrades. That’s not Boeing’s fault or the FAA’s fault. The pilot unions lobbied to not have a simulator training requirement for the MAX upgrades...to save pilot and airline costs. The grounded planes are airworthy too, with adequate training. DOT secretary Chao flew on the same model this week after the Ethiopian crash. Media frenzy should’ve focused on the victims a bit more too.
3
We are risk takers ..... it's a strength ... not a weakness.
I spent a year in Japan and Switzerland as a kid .... it was a topic of discussion. Same with grad school ..... They try and teach it (you can't)
Americans are different ... and hope we stay that way. Interesting thing .... we don't think we are better or superior ... we do think we are special. The British felt superior ..... and that is the problem with China .. they believe they are superior.
3
Washington Consensus Capitalism, enshrined in corporate law, enacted by captive regulatory bodies and receiving the imprimatur of the Supreme Court place profit above citizens.
4
I guess we have to modify the the Gettysburg Address to fit the times: " that government of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation, shall not perish from the earth".
When it comes to safety in the work place, in pharmaceuticals, with food and agriculture as well as aeronautics, it has been true that the rights of the corporation come first for a long time.
197
We should also ask why Boeing thought it was a good idea to put big engines on an overtaxed 1960's airframe that sits too low to the ground, create an unstable aircraft that tended to pitch up and stall, and then paper over the problem with a software system designed to correct that issue that that ended up killing two planeloads of passengers. Why did the FAA tolerate that solution? Boeing had made a design with taller landing gear that could fit those larger engine, the 757, which it had retired, and Airbus has the A-320 which had no issues fitting modern engines. Boeing took the cheapest route and built an unsafe plane and we paid the price.
5
The reason is simple: It’s because we worship profits.
9
I agree that greed is too strong a factor in USA regulations. But I must throw a wrench into the popular thinking around this.
My favorite thing to do as a youngster was to jump off of a diving board into a pool of water. I loved it. Diving became my sport - I competed in high school and college, and later coached diving at two colleges.
Diving is a dangerous activity. If you get careless, you can suffer serious harm. Because of this risk, diving boards have become scarce - owners of swimming clubs are afraid of being sued because of parents claiming "you should have protected my child!". What a loss, just because some kids were never taught to be careful.
I don't fly much because I refrain from activities which enhance global warming (jet fuel releases LOTS of CO2 into the air).
If people want the thrill of flying here and there, shouldn't they be allowed to take that risk? Why does it need to be regulated at all?
2
@Kenneth Brady,
Where and upon whom do those unregulated airplanes crash?!
1
Are the European nations less tolerant of risk than the US? Hmmmm. Shall we ask the children damaged by the widespread impact of thalidomide in Europe? Or how about the management of Volkswagen? I haven’t seen terribly severe consequences for VW in Germany, and the FDA stopped thalidomide here in the US before it was made available because testing made it clear that the drug was a powerful teratogen. And how long did it take Europe to move on smoking? Smoking was banned in many places in the US well before the same thing happened in Europe.
Banning things like GMO foods and American planes has a powerful economic component that I would argue plays a greater role than safety. Banning GMO foods from the US after whipping up fear of them is a powerful boost to local agriculture while at the same time not violating laws about tariffs and the like. And I bet Airbus in France is breaking out the champagne.
In my opinion, the only conclusions are (1) national priorities about safety are anecdotal and not philosophical and/or (2) actions taken by all nations are as much or more about national economic advantage as they are about anything else.
3
As a person who has seen this process from both sides, and was professionally involved in public health risk assessment, i would simply say that the 'precautionary principle' has got things expensively wrong on many occasions. Case in point dioxin; is nowhere near as dangerous to humans as originally claimed.
The US is too lenient on public health safety but there is a great deal of fad alarmism involved in some public health "emergencies" and the "cure" may indeed be worse than the "disease": opposition to chlorinated water supplies and to vaccines being examples.
With the aircraft the FAA may have not wished to admit that they took Boeing's word and failed to check. This will undoubtedly be the subject of searching investigations and will require time. The baying mob should allow enough time, but not too much more.
1
With regard to the 737 max 8, the degree of risk in operating the plane after two unexplained crashes was not assessed by the FAA, but by Boeing itself.
Why is that? The basic reason is that the FAA does not certify new designs by Boeing but allows Boeing to self-certify its own designs and has been doing so for about ten years.
The FAA back then extended to Boeing the authority to self-certify its aircraft and aircraft technologies. Under the agency’s safety oversight model, Boeing manufacturing and engineering employees perform delegated tasks for the FAA, including signing certificates approving new designs, after Boeing reviews and approves them.
As to the two crashes, the FAA was in lock step with Boeing in their "confidence in the safety of the 737 max 8" until it found itself on an unsustainable island of self-deception whereupon it suddenly found "new evidence" to finally ground a plane that has an obvious design flaw as attested to by the 339 deaths it caused.
So, the real question is not lax government oversight, we're way beyond that, but lax Boeing oversight over Boeing designs.
3
There is a safety extremism afoot in the country which is founded on 100% safe or not safe at all. Since when did safety mean absolutely no risk whatsoever? There are reasonable risks and difficult choices that confront regulators. And the fact that there is a great emotional outcry does not necessarily mean unreasonable risk. The editorial Board has lamented in the past that data, analysis and scientific assessment is not sufficiently considered in policy decisions. The Editorial Board should recall that those who opposed vaccine usage did so because of a "potential" risk and criticism of corporate and medical corporations.
4
Barriers and flashing lights at railway crossings; vaccination requirements for school children; speed limits on highways: these measures prevent disasters which might seem unlikely to the willfully ignorant. Adults with common sense recognize them as rational safety precautions.
For the current administration, citizens are merely voters to be duped; their actual lives have no value.
5
Corporations look to and need the government to provide oversight and regulation for the safety of all, even if they won't admit it. "Job killing regulations" are good for corporations, and in the end, also protect their bottom line. Even tee shirts must be safe to wear. The "government is the problem" mantra of Reaganism has watered down rules, regulations and the infrastructure to the point where the public may be unsafe and not even know it. Draw the dots between Flint Michigan, the NYC subway system, bridges that fall down from decay, the re-emergence of measles, the rise in pollution, the undoing of banking regulations and the Boeing Corporation. It is the responsibility of the public to ensure that public things are safe. Libertarian politics does little for the public good, and in the end, it is the corporations that actually suffer the greatest loss. Remember Enron? How much will poor oversight cost Boeing in the end?
6
The fact that the current United States government sees value in taking risks, for the reason of the all mighty dollar and not for the protection of consumers is outrages. Other areas are credit card laws and monopolies, often referred to as conglomerates. Fracking by the oil industry and the big one climate change. The editorial board has stumbled on what should be a political discussion for 2020. Business wouldn't exist without people, and corporations are not people.
5
It used to be that our senators and congressmen would, along with their staff, develop further regulations with which to address evident problems that heads of industry would protest. Somewhere along the way, the legislators stopped doing this and, outsourced the structuring of the regulation to the lobbyists of the industry in question. That only half the population votes for our most important elections is an indication that the alliance between donors and politicians is far more important than the one between politicians and general public.
6
Risks from chemical additives are also handled very differently in the US vs EU.
The EU embraces the Precautionary Principle where chemicals in consumer goods must be proven safe BEFORE they can be used whereas in the US anything can be used unless it's shown to be dangerous, AFTER causing harm.
The reasons are of course money, profit, and the power of industrial lobbies.
9
Because we live in a world where there is no such thing as perfect security. people who believe they can have perfect security have NO idea what that would actually cost. Not talking about money.
Ask the citizens of the Soviet Union of the 1950s-80s what it cost them to have a government that tried to keep them perfectly secure. From nature, from each other, and from their own thoughts. Money doesn't enter into the equation at that point.
Yet this is the world the left wants us to believe is good for us.
3
What that would cost who?
A government based on "capital" is solely focused on what is good for money and the generation of wealth. Money is considered "speech" by SCOTUS. Corporations have the same rights as humans but don't suffer the same harms as humans. In a "capitalist" society humans are secondary to capital.
8
Perhaps the U.S. tolerates so much risk because our current president has promised to take care of us and to be our spokesman. Unfortunately, we remain divided on this plum pudding, while the tendency to place the blame elsewhere appears to be thriving.
The New York Times published this year last a list of harmful consumer products, while Europe is trying to place a ban on these daily edible staples.
Take your chances. Contagious diseases such as measles, and spite often laced with sugar are spreading. Cancer is on the rise, the cost of medicine on the increase and the red dawn, admired by many, is polluted with toxic air.
Whether one cares is another matter.
Why? Our political system serves corporate America. We, the people, pay with our health and lives. The fact that the corporate world has managed to brainwash enough Americans to continue to vote for the status quo, or worse, is remarkable.
7
This country doesn't tolerate risk. Instead, whites in staggering numbers still harbor bigotry here. What does this have to do with "risk"?
It's this. Trump voters understand that they are at risk for serious injuries or death at percentages far greater than any other civilized, Western country. It's just that they don't care. Because if any of us is helped in any way, Trump voters simply can't stand the thought of ethnic or religious minorities also receiving this help.
This is why there is no product safety, the sick cult around guns is alive and well, and many millions of us go bankrupt with medical expenses.
Trump voters would rather see themselves and their own families harmed than to think that their brown-skinned neighbors would have the same protections as they do. And so they will vote against any aspect of the social safety net, Medicare for all, consumer protection, and sensible gun control. Trump voters simply cannot stomach the thought of such measures helping all Americans.
Now, if this nation had still been more than 95% white and Christian, we would have had gun control and we would have had a meaningful health care system for all citizens. Trump voters would see this as a system where "they" are helped, not "all of us are helped, even folks different from them".
And as long as whites continue their desperate cling to power, all of us will continue to be at risk.
8
Europeans are far more culturally mature that the U.S. will ever be with our form of government. If it were left to the Republican Party there'd be ZERO regulation on business and industry. If it were left to Republicans there also wouldn't be labor unions which drove the creation of OSHA and labor laws guaranteeing a minimum wage and privileges to name but a few attributes spawned by the liberal half of the government. Of course let's not forget liberals are responsible for every entitlement enjoyed by Democrats and Republicans alike. If Republicans had their way it would be simply nasty cutthroat survival of the fittest.
10
In the United States money talks. Corporate interests almost always trump the public interest. In my role as a science and technology writer, I often came across the contrast in the approach to environmental safety in the E.U. vs. the U.S.
To be fair, at the outset the U.S. took the lead in recognizing and initiating efforts to contain the release of toxic substances into the environment. But this situation soon reversed itself. Today, in the E.U., the governing principal (although one can still find many loopholes and disputed situations) is to demonstrate that a substance is safe before it is introduced into the environment. In the U.S., the opposite is the case. Namely, it has to be shown that a substance has caused harm before it is subject to regulation. And given our legal system, claims of harm can be disputed almost ad infinitum.
The reason for the distinction: In the main our politicians and the political system is incredibly corrupt to the point that masses of people sicken and die from adverse effects and the public is conditioned to remain ignorant despite the pervasive threat to life and limb.
If you challenge people on this matter, they'll respond with patriotic statements. This ignorance is now supercharged thanks to the Internet, where the dumbed down can reinforce one another without fear of being shamed. It's an aspect of the Dunning-Kruger effect in which low ability people lack the skills needed to recognize their own incompetence.
7
In the United States money talks. Corporate interests almost always trump the public interest. In my role as a science and technology writer, I often came across the contrast in the approach to environmental safety in the E.U. vs. the U.S.
To be fair, at the outset the U.S. took the lead in recognizing and initiating efforts to contain the release of toxic substances into the environment. But this situation soon reversed itself. Today, in the E.U., the governing principle (although one can still find many loopholes and disputed situations) is to demonstrate that a substance is safe before it is introduced into the environment. In the U.S., the opposite is the case. Namely, it has to be shown that a substance has caused harm before it is subject to regulation. And given our legal system, claims of harm can be disputed almost ad infinitum.
The reason for the distinction: In the main our politicians and the political system is incredibly corrupt to the point that masses of people sicken and die from adverse effects and the public is conditioned to remain ignorant despite the pervasive threat to life and limb.
If you challenge people on this matter, they'll respond with patriotic statements. This ignorance is now supercharged thanks to the Internet, where the dumbed down can reinforce one another without fear of being shamed. It's an aspect of the Dunning-Kruger effect in which low ability people lack the skills needed to recognize their own incompetence.
The answer to the question is really quite simple: we have the best government money can buy.
Period. Full Stop. Mic drop.
3
"Why Does the U.S. Tolerate So Much Risk?"
Ask the private insurance firms who demand exorbitant premiums!
1
Why? Because the US is pathological afraid of government power, while being pathologically relaxed about private power.
2
Why? The extremist pseudo-values associated with Neoliberalism, or the slow relentless erosion of human dignity as a direct result of unbridled capitalism.
1
Daniel Elwell’s self-serving casuistry is laid bare in all its absurdity by his false assertion that the “F.F.A is a data driven organization...(making) safety decisions based on what we know”.
What the F.F.A. and the world at large did know was that two Boeing 737 Max 8 airplanes crashed shortly after takeoff in calm weather because of flight control problems.
By any reasonable standard, that is incontestable data of sufficient magnitude to require the immediate grounding of the entire Boeing Max fleet.
That it did not should should result in a thorough untrammeled congressional investigation of the F.F.A. and the Department of Transportation, ideally free of any interference from members susceptible to the corrupting influence of Boeing’s political largesse.
Good luck with that, America.
4
Why?
1. Those with money have a disproportionate louder say in what laws and regulations get passed. That includes such "people" as corporations.
2. With corporations profits trump every other consideration.
3. The love of money is the root of all evil.
2
Ahh... but that means setting up and perhaps even enforcing pesky rules and regulations. The awful "red tape" that so many Republicans and even many Democrats insist must be trimmed if not removed altogether. Heavens, this might impinge upon profits. Isn't the goal of goverment to promote business? Who cares abut people?
NYT ran a story some weeks ago on the Lion Air crash. In that article it was stated that the EU was pressured into forgoing simulator training by Boeing and I believe the FAA. “Data driven” thinking sounds nice but Europe is a much greater adherent to the precautionary principle and its judgement seems to have been born out with these two unfortunate events.
The republicans have pushed us to let industry self govern. “We” don’t want risk. Industry does only because it makes them more money. We’ve moved so far to the right that regulations are called socialism. That’s ridiculous and false. Self regulation would be fine if decision-makers would be punished for criminal actions. The Boeing executives who let planes fly BEFORE they had fixed their software murdered 155 people. They should be tried for murder. Then self regulation would work and we wouldn’t take such risks.
1
The U.S. tolerates so much risk because our politicians (mostly Republicans) take money from industry. The commonweal is a forgotten concept, so it's GREED.
Businesses rarely fight each other if the fight would strengthen consumers, citizens, and the government against business in general. They leave their dirty laundry unwashed rather than washing it in public. Companies that would benefit from public recognition of climate change do not take the lead in exposing and condemning the logic of those companies that deny climate change.
The best example of this is the continued growth of our health care industry, whose excessive costs suck money from all other sectors of business into the health care sector. The other businesses that pay for health care for their employees are unable or unwilling to act together to reduce these costs, because this would establish a precedent for outside involvement in the economy. Perhaps they are reluctant to attack our health care industry and inspire that industry to reveal what other industries are up to.
We tolerate risk for everything but our schoolchildren... who are now subjected to "hardened" schools where they are greeted by "good guys with guns", surveilled throughout the day, and subjected to heart-wrenching drills to protect them from shooters.
"Right-wing parties in Europe generally are neither as skeptical of science nor as devoted to business as the Republican Party in the United States can be."
Science is the study of and attempt to explain the world as it is. Rational skepticism exists within science and by scientists to more accurately fine tune explanations of natural phenomena and is based upon revelation of additional fact or data supporting better explanation.
Skepticism of science is, by definition, external to science, and therefore not based on fact or the study of data, but an alternative influence having nothing to do with fact.
This alternative influence in the case of the Republican Party is, of course, money. To dress this sort of corruption on the part of a major political party in the dignified cloak of "skepticism" lends the right wing a legitimacy it does not deserve.
The American Republican Party has been selling us out for decades with their "skepticism" of science. It's time to call this name brand corruption what it truly is and stop referring to it as honest uncertainty.
Money is power. Our politicians are fascinated by and a few more than some are corrupted by money. Our country is no longer about "We the people … ."; it is more about "What is in it for me?".
1
True, for a mere 80% more you can be much safer. As long as you are among the elite NYT wealthy readers who can afford the flight. But who cares about those Fox News unleashed masses. Let Em Take the Bus.
Am I Right?
Why? Because we live in an plutocracy where the very rich and big corporations run the country. We are not a democracy.
1
No matter what you think about the 737 8 max, the U.S. air industry has a great safety record. We have not had a fatal accident in over 10 years in the U.S. We must be doing something right.
This does not mean we are taking the right approach to Global Warming, insecticides or other areas of regulation.
Increasingly nothing works in the U.S. Despite the marketing gloss, I feel like I am living amid third world standards. Should I drink the water or will the bridge fall?
2
Congress is owned by Wall Street. Wall Street cares about making money at the expense of consumers' health and safety. It's that simple.
4
I hate to say it, but life feels cheap in the US at times, where corporations are King and only the rich and powerful are allowed to thrive. Just look at Flint, MI where lead poisoning in the water took years to be proven and fixed. When a country as wealthy as the United States fails to provide its citizens with a clean water supply, malfeasance abounds.
4
Perhaps the difference is in how political campaigns tend to be funded here and in Europe.
1
If I’m charitable, I’d say we tolerate more risk foisted on us by corporations because we, collectively, believe - like Charlie Brown does Lucy - that corporations aren’t just ‘people’, but that they’re made up of people with the same concerns as people and sometimes we’re fed false information or not enough information to make sound judgements on their behalf.
If I’m uncharitable, I’d say it’s because we’re lazy. We don’t want to believe self-governance requires never-ending vigilance and work, preferring to believe the self-interested parties that wave us off (buy us off?) with jeremiads against regulations and in favor of ‘drowning the state’ in a bathtub.
Someday we’ll learn there’s no such thing as a free lunch, though by electing a corporate con man like Trump it appears we have a ways to go before we learn that lesson.
1
Yes in medicine or vehicles that ferry large # of humans being as much cautious as possible to maximize safety has to be a guiding principle.In perfecting this or other planes tapping into the best Sci. or engineering expertise available,being more ingenious, upgrading Pilots' ability is necessary.But,when it comes to supplies of Air Vehicles what are the options out there?.For instance if the IAAF wants to hold a Marathon Comp. to bring out a sub-2 Hr performance it seems natural to enlist more of elite E.African long distance talent, throwing in some of the Flanagans or Radcliffs, just as if it is short distance ones IAAF enlists more from US and the Caribbeans.So it makes a lot more sense to use Boeing's Planes more often and more widely and have better expectation about BCo churning out more safe and more durable ones.Caution is needed not to rush to replacing with alternate products,because greed has no bound it is possible suppliers may pop up with BBs or FBs (Bootleg Boeings or Fake Boeings).Safety need to be improved not further compromised.Last Sunday's very sad accident some 45K from here has focused attention on the complexities in the aspects of Air Travel's Business, Tech and regulation.Also,we shouldn't forget that great fine reportings by Major Media outlets like NYT and the related discussions were very educative of the traveling public and others associated with Air Travel stuff.The victims by their passing have already started teaching i.e.helping us.TMD.
Right, the FAA's poor judgement in this case to wait for more information before grounding the planes is not good science and misrepresents the situation. Critically aware individuals know that some situations absolutely call for use of the precautionary principle and not a risk management principle. Those in charge of this decision were lucky no one else was killed. I hope they rethink their decision-making and be less dogmatic in their approach.
American business executives are plenty aware of risk, risk to corporate profits or to themselves as individuals. But basically they could care less about risk to faceless consumers or the environment ... so long as they and their profits are safe.
This is why government regulation is needed. Business WILL NOT regulate itself.
How many bankers and traders went to prison for the 2008 meltdown?
4
President Coolidge declared, "The business of America is business." Nearly 50% of Americans would agree. THAT'S why we tolerate so much risk. Many would say, "It's worth it." But when enough privileged people get hurt, THEN we the people, through our representatives, are able to take action. That's our historic pattern--and to be fair, humanity's pattern. The sinking of the Titanic brought reforms on passenger liners, for example. Huge, deadly fires at textile sweatshops brought occupational safety and work reforms, etc.
1
Oddly enough, this editorial in their last paragraph captures the US attitude, and demonstrates the wide gulf between a nation that puts corporates first and its people last. The editors, after not really explaining why American politicians prove to privilege money and power, finally write:
'Precautionary regulation imposes real economic costs. In some cases, the more permissive stance of the United States may well be justified. '
Other nations would turn that around to say 'Lack of precautionary regulation imposes real public and environmental costs. In many cases, the more permissive stance of the US, cannot be justified, but powerful lobbyists, as the mouthpieces for wealthy corporations which have been deemed to be persons, influence regulations.'
3
Boeing is a major defense contractor. It's a publicly traded company. Within its management ranks are battalions of retired military personnel, government officials, including former FAA staff, former Congressmen, even ex-White House senior staff. The Pentagon has been called a "pipeline" to high-paying Boeing jobs.
It's unlikely all these veterans of public and military service know much about building planes in general and warplanes in particular. But they know about government contracting, budgets, strategic plans. decision-making, lobbying, influence, and the right people in agencies like the FAA and NASA.
The people at Boeing share a common mantra: what's good for me is good for America.
Everything made by Boeing that flies has to be certified air-worthy by the FAA. Billions are on the line every time the FAA looks askance at anything related to Boeing.
What are the chances that Boeing doesn't hold the FAA captive? About the same odds passengers on either 737 Max had of surviving.
Monopoly capitalism celebrates high risk and even higher reward. For the wealthy it's a casino economy with great odds and greater returns.
For the rest of us, it's flying in a plane that the FAA says is safe until it crashes. Not once but twice.
But hey, flying is a lot safer than driving a car, right?
Cold comfort for the families and friends of the 346 people who died.
10
No European leader ever has described their government as Benjamin Franklin once described our government, as “an experiment.”We value risks because we value individual rights and freedoms over the conformist attitude of European countries (including Britain and its dominions) which value peace and order. For good or bad, Americans most value freedom, the other side of Franklin’s idea that our experiment is a big risk. Hence our reluctance to regulate it.
The USA is Socialist also but still has catching up to do with the more experienced socialist countries. The more experienced ones learned wealth in the hands of a few is destabilizing both economically and politically.
1
And we are slowly moving backward, to the era the republicans so fondly talk of. Lyndon Johnson once said of the Republican Party, “Those who appeal to you to hold onto the past, do so at the cost of denying you, your future” pretty profound words, if you stop to think about it.
Reducing regulations that made sense when imposed, but don’t anymore should be scrapped, but to reduce regulations for the sake of corporations, is a bad thing for the citizens that don’t have the luxury of private jets. The regulations that Trump claims restrict a companies ability to basically make money at the expense of the health, and overall well being of the citizens, and we need to work to stop the idea that regulations are a bad thing. We complain that the prison sentences for white collar crimes isn’t enough, yet the Republican Party is and has made it almost crime to regulate corporations, and have actually weakened them by their constant attacks on the regulatory framework that is really designed to protect us the citizens against corporate malfeasance. And their base feeds right into that trope, believing that they will benefit from unregulated corporations.
For those that are too young to remember, we once barely regulated corporations, as a result, we had acid rain, smog alerts, and rivers that would spontaneously combust, Fish inedible because of companies pouring poisons, and other toxic waste the rivers, the list goes on.
4
That first flight crash was seen as a high risk, low incidence accident, but the second similar crash was a high risk, higher incident crash, almost double the risk, and those accidents are spectacular and catastrophic. The owners of the plane ignore these accidents at their peril.
The fact that they put money first and kept those planes flying, even for a day, will certainly come back to haunt them. They will regret that extra day.
2
Because all of the corporations own all the politicians. Not hard to puzzle that out. We need to abolish the electoral college and go to the popular vote. Maybe some of the corruption will end if the people really have power
2
Simply because most nations (in developed countries) are more responsive to the "average citizen" needs.
The US Government is more responsive to the financial needs of the business world. And the rich people.
Like the saying goes "The business of the US is business."
In particular, in Europe --my roots-- after multiple wars waged during hundreds of years. People of most walks of life have learned that different social classes need to compromise to live "peacefully" together.
2
Figures that a republican president would utter such a ridiculous saying.
Greed rocks, man! Wealth is a turn on.
The American dream can be pretty shallow as most commentators fully realize.
And the public is dazzled by constant advertising and commercial culture has a very recent concept of the history of broader cultural development and its richness and values.
But add to this that those at the top have pushed the idea that we are an economy rather than a true society or collection of societies that deserve respect and nurturing. "Classical economy" and faith in magic hands prevail. Civility gives way to competition and litigation.
The vision of striving to be a people is fading and has given way to a vision of striving to maintain a strong economy .
And history suggests that empires in decline also hasten their slide along by being in denial and factions blame each other and end up overlooking the fundamental issues.
Etc.Etc.Etc.
Lots of readers comments that I agree with. Just want to add a bit.
2
Corporate America put its thumb on the scale when strike-busting was first practiced. Ordinary people were unable to mobilize for safe workplace practices 100 years ago.
2
There's no mystery here. In 2010 the Supreme Court (via the Citizens United decision) decided that the 1st Amendment required American legislators to act as the agents of those special interests with wherewithal to finance the billion dollar advertising campaigns needed to win a modern election. The fact that those who pay the piper -- be it directly or indirectly through "independent" political action committees -- still get to call the tune, well that fact seems to have escaped them.
Back in 1949 Justice R.H. Jackson foresaw something like this in his dissent in another First Amendment case (Terminiello v. City of Chicago), when he wrote "There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." Apparently the justices who formed the majority in the Citizens United decision missed the day they covered that case in law school.
2
I wish we, as country, could do a moral re-set without having to go through a national economic catastrophe, but I'm not optimistic.
4
As a consumer and ultimately responsible for managing my own risks, it makes sense to avoid products from under-regulated countries. It serves no one to play games with people's confidence.
Why does the US tolerate so much risk for its average citizens--risks in economic security, jobs, health, personal debt, and risks in being mowed down by guns?
Meanwhile why does our politics protect big corporations from financial risk, and refuse to regulate/prosecute even when they put our whole economy at risk?
Many US voters are taught to think America is superior to other countries in all things. Proud of what’s called American Exceptionalism.
Recall when Sanders used the example of Denmark in the debate, Clinton proudly said --"America is NOT Denmark!" She thought most voters would agree. End of story. No analysis or comparisons by the news media. Is it too taboo for America?
The corporate donors who invest in our elections profit greatly from lack of resistance to their political power, as we see public influence on lawmaking is weakened.
We have the most costly and profitable systems in the world for medical care, education, and for our elections.
The Times has to grapple with this in its editorials. Not just say that the GOP is more ‘devoted to business’ than are EU right wing parties. Lol.
Instead of being avoided, this needs a spotlight and analysis by responsible news media, if it seeks to fulfill its 1st Amendment duty to inform the voters on issues affecting their lives.
2
It isn't risk assessment. It isn't risk tolerance.
It is just corporate power.
They dominate government here, owning politicians, in ways that are not as true in Europe. They get what they pay for.
6
Really? Is this a rhetorical question? It's the money. The business of business is business. Just like trump, never admit a mistake,never admit responsibility,never say you're sorry. Always settle lawsuits with no admission of guilt. Protect the "brand" and shareholders.
7
There is clear scientific evidence of public risk from climate change. There is even clear scientific evidence for economic risk from climate change.
Regulation in the US is a for profit enterprise. Example: Regulations on the compounding pharmacy business that prohibits them from competing with the pharma companies. Is that public safety, or support of monopoly?
1
And oddly the United States is the only country, NOT building any kind of sea walls or ways to mitigate climate change, just look around the world, look at the UK, Germany, Netherlands, China, Japan, are all building some form of mediation. Because their politicians realize that the climate is changing, it doesn’t matter the why of it, just the fact that it is should be enough.
Some 30 years ago, we cleaned up our air, waterways, we regulated corporations into doing the right thing. Remember a Republican President created the EPA, Bush 42, one of his first acts as president, was to sign into law the clean air act, his predecessor, Reagan, didn’t even bother to read it, much less sign it, but then again Reagan also ignored the Savings and Loan financial crisis (bailed out by tax payers), throughout his whole term in office, maybe he forgot about it.........
1
GIVE ME A BREAK. As a flight attendant with Pan Am in the 1960s and 70s, we asked for many things and got nothing from the FAA. We knew exactly who they were working for, and it was not the safety of the flying public, or of us, the workers in the industry that the FAA was supposed to protect.
We asked for flame-retardant seat covers. We asked for flame-retardant-required uniforms. We asked to have OSHA look at our working environments, but were told that those were impossible on any aircraft. We asked for better evacuations systems and were told they would be too expensive. We asked for better first aid kits, including defibrillators, which took, what, ten years to accommodate and train us? No, as a member of the airline industry, (although a long time ago) we all knew that the FAA was in the pocket of the airlines. The pilots may have a very different argument on this, because their connection to FAA was very different from ours. We still thought that we should have a seat at that table, albeit maybe in a different room.
We were taught that we were there to protect and save our passengers, but nothing was done to protect us so that we could do the same for those same passengers.
We asked for many things, but to this day, I am not sure if any of these issues were addressed. If OSHA has an exception for airlines, I do understand, but we were certainly never told that we were outside of the normal work environment or protection.
6
It's obvious the risk of some wealthy shareholders losing money is much more important that the risk of some people losing their lives.
It's also obvious that to US policy makers the lives and health of Americans isn't worth wasting money on. Just consider the US health system and the health insurance system.
3
There is a maxim called “The Potent Director’s Fallacy,” that states, fundamentally, people in high positions (and usually wealthy—funny coincidence) are attributed to to have extraordinarily advanced skills, whether it be in management, analysis, marketing savvy...you name it.
Guess what? They’re people, too, with all the same foibles and you and me. If there’s one thing this particular administration has been exceedingly competent at, it is in convincing a wide swath of the populace that government workers (think FAA safety regulators, in this case, but the generalization is obvious) aren’t worth keeping on the payroll. It started with Reagan, but has now been raised to high art.
3
That’s right, the idea that government can’t do anything right was started by Reagan, he famously said, “The nine worst words anyone can hear is, I’m from the government, and I’m here to help”. Unless it’s FEMA, and even then people mostly in red states since they are the recipient of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, complain, but still line up for money to rebuild. If they really were the party of self sufficiency they claim to be they wouldn’t line up for socialist money, because FEMA fits in their definition of socialism, but so is subsidizing farmers, who are now complaining because their man Trump wants to cut their subsidy.
Regulatory precaution can have a chilling effect on innovation and enterprise. Agencies bear a burden of remaining apolitical and nonpartisan in the interest of balancing public safety and economic vitality toward the overall national interest.
1
@Jack
Chilling effect on innovation and enterprise? Yes, bodies do cool when they are no longer living.
Why? Because the dogma sold to the American people is that things are bad so we have to tolerate costs and risks. It would be nice to clean up the environment but can’t afford it because would wipe out coal-mining jobs. It would be nice to impose safety standards, but we can’t afford it. Fight, scourge, cope—that what we gotta do. Life is tough: defending against the ‘carnage’ in inner cities, promoting smoke-stack industries so that men can have jobs, etc.
Unlike citizens of other affluent countries, working class Americans believe that they live in the Third World, where life is tough, where violence and corruption are endemic, and where the best they can do is to work the system, support patrons who will give them crumbs, and sacrifice health and safety to survive.
6
Oligarchs and corporations buy politicians and the former have their own planes, which often fly politicians.
Vote suppression has reinforced electing GOP Senators and representatives, who are more likely to cater to their wealthy contributors, who generally want less regulation.
It’s a vicious cycle. A cycle of Greed before People.
4
It is not tolerance of risk. It is simply profits over people. Corporations have captured regulatory agencies. They can promote lies and spin the stories knowing fully the risks upon the public. It would not surprise me if members of government and regulators would not want their family and friends to fly on the 737 max while arguing that the risk is not proven. It is time we stop worshiping profit and dollars and place more value on people's lives.
14
It's not about risk, it's about risk versus benefit. And in just the last couple of days, we have learned a tremendous amount about how Americans assess risk/benefit.
We have learned that Americans believe that the risk to 49 innocent human lives (multiplied how many times over) does not outweigh the benefit of adult, white nationalist men having unlimited access to military assault rifles.
We have learned that Americans believe that the risk to 346 human lives does not outweigh the benefit of not having to endure the expense of updating software on Boeing 737 Max 8 planes, nor the inconvenience of grounding flights to figure out why those 346 people had to die.
We have learned that Americans do not believe that the risk to our 74 million children's futures from climate catastrophe does not outweigh the benefit of driving 15 mpg SUVs, living in 3000 square foot houses, and gorging ourselves on beef every day.
In each case, we refuse to act because there is not enough "data" to take action.
"How many deaths will it take till he knows that too many people have died?" The answer, Mr. Dylan, is blowing in the wind.
14
The same principle of waiting for specific proof rather than being cautious is being applied to G 5, the upcoming technology to be used across the country. There is at least evidence justifying concern, but we are heading to the point of no return without assurance that the technology will not be detrimental to human health.
1
Must you even ask the question? The situation here in the USA is directly related to *profits*. Regulations reduce profits. Standards for auto safety/fuel efficiency, clean air/water, etc. reduce profits. I could go on....
Very rich people & big corporations give millions of dollars to politicians who will protect those profits. While those pols are in the majority, they gerrymander districts across the country to ensure they have an advantage in later elections. They also work to keep people from voting. This is disgusting, but it is where we are today and most people know it.
9
@Chris....Most people do know it, and polls show huge majorities of voters in both parties want to reverse Citizens United. Seems a taboo in US 'free' media to even discuss it. This is a democracy?
Our media will express outrage at voter suppression and gerrymandering. Those are easy to oppose. I heard that on CNN last night, but the host stopped at even mentioning campaign finance.
Our papers and 24/7 cable TV will never talk attack our legalized systems of corporate mega donors whose money limits the field of candidates to those most cooperative, and sets limits of lawmaking in their favor.
The Times could use a full time columnist to concretely connect our dire national problems to how we finance our elections. Trump is a symptom of this big money virus.
The media could point to better alternatives to big money elections that existed in our own better past, and today in other democracies. Our media keeps this dark.
This Times editorial is diplomatic so not to offend----says EU rw parties aren't as 'devoted to business' (!) as our GOP 'can be'. Can be? lol.
How timid! What's the editorial board scared of? Being called 'left wing' by GOP/ Fox News?
Sad!
1
In America everything has to be earned. There is no right to anything, not even to be heard on topics that are urgent or in need of being addressed for the public good. All that matters in America is money. If you don't have enough to make a few large donations to your representatives chances are they won't listen to you. All the public does is pay our elected officials salaries with our tax dollars. That's not nearly enough in their eyes, to merit their attention.
9
The FAA and FDA have always compromised in the interest of moneyed corporations. Health and safety of consumers are secondary to business interests. It’s called capitalism.
3
We tolerate risk because risk tolerance is likely passed down generations in our genes. For the vast majority of Americans, it was our ancestors who got on the boats (likely penniless in steerage) while the risk-averse stayed in Europe. In genetics, that might be called a founder effect. To some extent, the same can be said for the general attitudes of the American East versus West. The independent folk headed west to make their fortune on their own. This longitudinal difference is still present socially, economically, and politically today two centuries after the initiation of the westward expansion.
2
Certainly there is cultural effect - be it social group or by individual choice. But are you seriously proposing it is biological science - a risk gene ? Intriguing, show us NYT readers where you get that,
Yes, to get a handle on corporate bribery of our political process and regulation—
We could stipulate that elections are 6 months long, rather than our continuous election mode with 2-year-long elections.
[And of course also overturn the worst Supreme Court mistake of our time—Citizens United.]
2
Consider that a few years ago the Pentagon "released a report asserting decisively that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages."
And consider that many of our lawmakers and political appointees have been slowing action on this "immediate threat to national security" in return for petrodollars. Why is this not a crime punishable by long prison sentences? (and this also goes for those paying the bribes)
Imagine the response if they were increasing our exposure to another threat to national security (albeit a lesser one) named ISIS.
People would be going to jail.
5
I believe that the US tolerates so much more risk because our politicians are beholden to corporate interests.
I lived in the UK for many years. Once I got over the shock of their election system - that it can be called with just months notice - I realized how much cheaper and less prone to bribery it was.
Let's call corporate donations to politicians for what they are - bribery. And our continuous election cycle means that politicians need lots of money, which they obtain mostly from large corporations.
Why bite the hand that feeds you?
15
Graft by any other name is still graft.
1
This editorial focuses on differences between US and European philosophy of regulation and precaution.
But what about "compromise" of the regulating agency by the very industry it oversees—in this case, the FAA allowing Boeing to have a hand in regulating itself?
And what about our other critical and protective government agencies, like the FDA and the EPA.
Beginning with George W. Bush they have been defunded and demoralized and their independence impaired.
And it continues to worsen with the erratic and volatile administration of Donald John Trump.
But we depend upon these agencies. We should all be profoundly distressed.
The importance of our protective agencies, like the FAA and the FDA and the EPA, cannot be overstated. They must be well funded and staffed with the most competent people, free of industry compromise.
5
Why does innovation still comes so disproportionately from the United States?
We are to a very large degree descendants of humans with risk taking traits that self selected by leaving the only known and familiar (and psychologically safe) to come to America. Crossing the Atlantic on a sailing ship or walking across Mexico in itself presents higher then average tolerance for risk. It is in our blood. ( genes if you prefer) The counterintuitive fact is that the admin state is busy over regulating against infinitesimal risks stunting our progress. Eliminating all risk in all things ranging from campus speech offense to every germ pays back with ignorance, asthma and costs.
In retrospect every negative outcome is a proof of a risk taken and therefore risky behavior and therefore disregard for safety. Fits with the current anti capitalist anti free enterprise narrative calling for more central planning and controls.
4
Garbage defending those who are solidifying their economic position at the top which is the opposite of a free market and genuine innovation. Most Americans are suffering the consequences including those who innovate. Instead our economic and political structure smothers innovation by buying it up and then deciding whether to use it or kill it. The goal of many innovators today is to have their company/innovation bought by the filthy rich so they can retire early. This is a system that benefits the few and leaves most Americans in a state of near poverty.
@Just Saying I never realized that living in preventable pollution made me a better person! /s
1
“The United States has a higher threshold than other developed nations for allowing corporations to risk the health and safety of consumers.”
Wrong. The FAA does not represent the US. As we learned this week, the FAA is embedded with and represented Boeing.
9
Does this remind anyone else of the 1988 Challenger Shuttle disaster? A bit different, but so much the same attitude. I can hear the chatter: " It couldn't be a software problem because we need the flights to continue."
4
It’s clear that right after the second 737 max crash they should have been grounded. I’m sure there are also regulatory capture situations in which action should have been taken but was not.
However, the US has become so obsessed with taking zero risk that it is stifling all sorts of aspects of our lives. To take the most obvious example American kids have been wrapped in such a tight safety cocoon that they are growing up fearful and stunted in their character.
The general tone of this editorial is dangerous.
3
Well, generalizations are often incorrect. I'm not a Boeing apologist, but I don't think the US response was anything more than a genuine difference in how the FAA handles this type of issue than their counterparts around the world. An opposite example of risk tolerance is pharmaceuticals. The FDA is much slower to approve medicines for public consumption in the US than its counterparts in Europe and Asia, despite huge industrial power and influence of the big pharma companies.
So its not really a US thing, it was an FAA thing.
2
I work in healthcare, and your mistaken, the FDA has a fast track for drugs, which is why you see them hitting the market one after the other, then two months later you see the ambulance chasing lawyers, saying if you’ve been hurt by taking XYZ drug, you may be eligible for compensation. Drugs that used to take months or years in clinical trials before being approved for use, rarely had unanticipated side effects, today, that is not the case.
1
It appears your argument depends most strongly on changes in the last two years - and, presumably, these are the sort of changes that are expected by voters who elected the President and these changes have the support of those voters. If that is the case, then I suppose the better question is what led these voters to vote in favor of the interests of business and the wealthy and the privileged and to vote against their own likely self-interest.
3
Our government is the best one corporations can buy. THAT is who our government serves.
9
"The FAA said, by contrast, that the absence of was the reason..." they were letting the airlines keep the planes in the air.
Two identical airplanes fell out of the sky, in the same pattern. Is this not information?
5
@Larry N
Not sufficient information, were the crashes pilot error, a lack of training on how the auto pilot systems work? The pilots were inexperienced as compared to American pilots who are required to have much more experience.
The risks of the potential of climate change, which might accelerate within a decade or two and result in flooding Florida and the east coast, is not acceptable. Maybe it's not real, but the downside is simply too high.
@Paul S
So right. Simply put: the direr the consequences and the greater the frequency the lower (as in less demanding) the precautionary threshold. Ask any insurer.
1
That’s right, it’s called risk assessment.
MONEY - that is the only reason. We hold it above everything else. And other nations, not so much.
5
Look at the risk that desperate voters took with Trump, and who will vote for him again, because they are still desperate, have nothing to lose, and no good alternative that they understand.
There are many examples of risky behavior, but the risk is worth it to the corporations, they are too big to fail (2008), or will settle for dimes on the dollar.
3
root cause: American Style capitalism. It runs the show before human/animal/environment standard of living, quality of life considerations. Profit at all costs & the 'make me/us richer mandate despite the costs to the environment, our values, & humankind' is the screed of our very own plutocrats & oligarchs & apparently many Republicans that have an investment account.
It wasn't' always this way but many legislative changes made during & after the Newt Gingrich/Ronald Reagan era helped usher in greed is good values of those in power. Sad.
6
A 'data-driven' organization as the FAA proclaims itself to be really means in practice: focused on looking backward, not forward.
2
The premise of this article is bogus and self-denigrating: "The United States has a higher threshold than other developed nations for allowing corporations to risk the health and safety of consumers". Historically, the U.S. has been a leader in restricting risk to the public. We were the first major country to ban smoking in public places, in spite of having a large tobacco industry. We were also the first ban smoking on domestic flights. Our FDA and FAA have generally been considered to apply the most stringent safety standards in their respective areas. It is unfortunate that, in the short run, the present occupant of 1600 Penn Ave and his cronies have chosen to undermine this thoroughness.
5
@dogrunner1
Perhaps you could elaborate and tell us exactly what F.A.A regulations have been altered or watered down under the Trump administration? No? Didn't think so.
@jaco
Well, the specifics about FAA regs are not the only target of this article or the comment to which you responded. Consider the rollback of environmental regs on air pollution and the denial of climate change. There is lots of evidence for dogrunner1's point. The current administration HAS favored corporate profit over public safety. So, think so.
8
This has been happening way before Trump. A systematic strategy of deregulation, vilification of government, and allowing corporate interests and their money to not just influence but dictate policy started with Reagan in 1980 and has been the MO of all the Republicans ever since. It has caused massive damage to our society and democracy. The Republicans are not just another political party, but a malignant and destructive force that needs to be voted out of office at every level.
Why doesn't this article mention the OCPP? The Office of Corporate Profit Protection is a fundamental part of American democracy. It's one leg of our four-part government: the judiciary, the executive, the legislative, and the corporate branches. The OCPP is responsible for much of our domestic and foreign policy. I am mystified by the failure to acknowledge its historic and continuing accomplishments. After all, as Lincoln said: government of the people, by the people, but for the corporations.
3
Not definitive, but keep in mind that the two fatal crashes were by 3rd world airlines, not fully trained cockpit crew; and there is a simple cut off to the software, reach down and flick a switch. Let's hope this proves to be the case.
@Michael Paine
One of the pilots had over 8K hrs of flying, he was no novice. Plus american pilots have also made reports of the same thing happening to them while flying with the new software. So far it does not seem to be a matter of just flicking a switch.
8
A low blow characterization. I am quite confident Lion Air and Ethiopian Air will prevail in court vs. Boeing eventually. A contract, tort, class action lawyer’s dream case. Deliberate negligence, if not worse.
3
Ethiopian Airlines is NOT a 3rd world-rate airline
Our capitalist society is based on monopoly markets (and NOT "free markets"). Power is an important component of our capitalist society -- the power to create monopolies, the power to not regulate (or, when absolutely necessary, to regulate to the minimal extent possible), to buy election results, to protect property and profits.
The welfare of people who cannot acquire wealth in this system or pay to be healthy and safe is not a concern of our American system of corporate capitalism.
7
It is curious to me that when there are two unusual crashes of United States military aircraft, all planes of that type are immediately grounded for review of the circumstances. This does not appear to be true to commercial flights. Could the difference be that commercial airplane manufacturers have to rely on sales, whereas military airplane manufacturers have locked in contracts and they get paid no matter what. Perhaps the FAA is a little bit over zealous in protecting Boeing's financial interests. Additionally it should be noted that the commercial aviation industry has a remarkable safety record. These planes just do not crash except in unusual circumstances. That two planes of the same model crashed seemingly without cause should have been prima facie evidence there was something wrong and the planes grounded immediately.
4
Risk imposed by deceitful corporations for a profit is wrong. When they know something is riskier than they say it is and they're caught they should be punished, more so if people get hurt.
But this can't be spoken of in a vacuum. Americans as a whole are risk takers. It's inherent in our economic system and there's a reasonable argument we wouldn't be a nation if it weren't for risk taking, from the Pilgrims to the war of Independence, Lewis & Clark, the Wright Brothers, D-Day and the Apollo program.
It's not always a good part of our national psyche. We like fast cars, alcohol (sometimes with the cars), drugs, dangerous sports, illicit sex, firearms -- the list of personal risks people are willing to accept is high.
I think Boeing could have come out and said openly that the 737 Max had an elevated risk of crashing and people would have still flown on it. Even if people shied away from flights with that equipment, had airlines cut ticket prices for those flights the numbers would have climbed back up because people would have thought a $100 flight was worth the risk. Not because it was, but because that's just what Americans do.
I'm not sure that a zero-risk world is a worthy goal. It means taking away people's ability to choose and create opportunities.
1
The U.S.A. has not had any fatal airlines crashes since 2009, at home in the U.S.. Each year there have been many thousands if not 100s of thousands of miles flown. The 737 has crashed before also. As the public is never given any reason behind letting the airline continue to fly the plane or not there is no way to judge crashes. Airlines are likely the safest way to travel. Its not clear that European regulators are doing a better job . I think focus on automobile deaths (37,000) or drug overdoes (70,000)+ Whether or not U.S. air regulators are doing a better job is mostly academic. Airlines despite occasional crashes are a very safe way to travel.
5
@Michael Cohen...If you have ever boarded a flight in Europe you would no that they are not nearly as careful as the TSA.
Why? In our endemically corrupt system, there is a beautifully constructed cycle of opportunity where the mother’s milk of politics, big bucks, is seamlessly passed from corporations to lobbyists to the yawning campaign coffers of Congress, where the “voices” of those corporate interests are loudly heard and in turn richly rewarded by targeted deregulation, or weakened regulation if needed. Then this cycle keeps on repeating itself. A magnificent invention!
3
Why? Because in the US, the Supreme Court decided in the Citizen's United decision that corporations are people, and that they are more important people than the actual citizens of the republic.
8
When Congress is nearly a wholly own subsidiary of Big Business through their unlimited campaign contributions and lobbyists, this is what you get. It's the corpocracy, stupid!
6
@Paul Wortman And the executive branch. And the judicial branch.
Politicians/regulators are in bed with corporations and in many cases industries are expected to police themselves. With perennial Federal budget cutbacks, except where bogus walls are concerned, it's a recipe for disaster.
6
In the United States, money is the first priority and goal. There is an insane deference to those we think have lots of it. People are rated according to how much they have and are presumed to be “better” if they are perceived to have wealth. (Trump ran on this idea, that he could make America “great again” if he, a supposedly wealthy person, would be put in charge.)
High-end labels and logos are advertising not only for the corporation, but for the consumer, who gets to advertise their ability to purchase luxuries. People are treated differently in public and private, based on their possessions and perceived wealth.
Justice is dealt differently to those with it and without it. People make decisions about whether to act honestly, based on what they may get - or lose. Healthcare is focused on making money, research isn’t shared to advance health, but is selfishly held onto, in order to keep the biggest monetary prize if success happens.
A revival of respect and civility to one another is sorely needed. A renewed appreciation of kindness, helpfulness, and giving to one another would be ideal, and it does sometimes happen....but only sometimes.
4
Corporations run American politics so what is good for corporations is good for politics. Curiously, this sounds like a 'socialist' agenda in reverse: where the government runs the corporations like Air France, it nonetheless responds to public outcry. Here, it's the outcry of CEOs and shareholders that matter and the public be damned (or sold, or poisoned, or incarcerated, or tricked).
2
The difference between social democracy (Europe) and crony capitalism run for the benefit of oligarchs. Governments of social democracy, as Macron (France) found out the hard way, are beholding to voters. Governments run for capitalists are beholding to shareholders: voters be damned.
4
The reason why US regulators are less risk averse than their counterparts in other parts of the world, notably the European community, is because American lives have become expendable. The wealthy elite who run the big companies and make the rules are insensitive to the suffering of the common man. Corporations are run for profit and wealth. If a few people have to die, well that is an acceptable trade-off between cost and risk. Even more so if it is non-American lives that are "expended."
Boeing is directly at fault for this situation. They designed and built this airplane, and they pretended that the changes they made were insignificant to save money and bolster their marketing plan by insisting the aircraft was no more than a replica of an earlier plane. So they decided to let pilots fly "blind" rather than incur training costs that might sink their money-making scheme.
I tell you what. Let's send the senior executive leaders of Boeing up in their airplane and let them see what happens. Just to make things interesting, choose a pilot that has never heard of MCAS. And to make it really interesting, let's stick a sock in the instrument that reports aircraft nose-up status. Of course the plane is safe. Their marketing plan says so.
2
In a way it's ironic that this discussion was set off by plane crashes. With errors at U.S. hospitals estimated (by some researchers) to cause as many as 440,000 unnecessary deaths a year, I have often wished that hospitals were as safety-conscious as the airlines.
5
@Barbara
Spot on.
Have a look (if you haven’t already) at “The Checklist Manifesto” by Atul Gawande.
The FAA used to be the gold standard that other nations were following when it came to air traffic regulation.
Another example of trust and goodwill that Trump has shattered.
7
As Mitt said “Corporations are people too.” And these corporate-people can donate to their politician of choice so as to lubricate the ways to profits.
Everyone else just get out of the way.
5
Why does the USA tolerate so much risk to its own citizens? Because the regulators are the same folks as the regulated. Self-regulation has aways been a winning proposition -- for the regulated, who make the rules, enforce them and then hold themselves accountable for their infractions.
What a country!
4
The "We The People" aspiration in the Declaration of Independence was to further "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." By the time it came to a Constitution, that had been changed to "life, liberty and property."
2
Because the corporations that would lose the most profits from increased regulation own the legislators and policy.
6
Don't forget climate change, where we quit while the rest of the world is making an effort. Talk about something where the risks are obvious but the response is non-existent or worse.
310
@PJ
Not just ‘obvious’ but asymmetrical. If we’re wrong, we’re just out some money; we’re clever enough to make more and we’ll have learned a bunch of new science along the way. If the Deniers are wrong, it could very well mean the end of human civilization due to the pressures of conflict in the Thermonuclear Age. (And there WILL be conflict when the seas rise and a billion people worldwide are forced to abandon coastal cities and cross borders)
38
@PJ...Not a fair example. Obama was at the forefront of pushing the Paris Accord. Trump is an outlier liar.
11
@PJ Climate change, stemmata change. I got a third home in the Hamptons to redecorate this summer!
4
In Europe, politicians and regulators have the public good in mind. In the USA, they are on the take of these large corporations and couldn't care less about public good.
372
@Georges
That hasn't always been the case. Thalidomide was widely available in Europe (pre EU) for nausea in pregnancy with disastrous effects on the fetuses. The FDA in the US refused to approve the drug because there was insufficient safety testing. (The EU drug approval process is still more lax than in the US. To the extent that pharmaceutical companies in the US continue to be obscenely profitable, there is less motivation to loosen the safety/efficacy standards except for "last chance" situations.)
Deregulation and self inspections/audits in the US has become the more prevalent norm where the drive to increase corporate profit drives the risk/benefit evaluation. The EU has had to develop a more risk averse standard once it became an open trade entity of countries with very different historical risk/benefit considerations.
11
@Jao
Quite right. Many examples, among which Thalidomide was an early one, were necessary to inform the European policy.
FDA and FAA built a great reputation for themselves. FAA's reputation has been declining for some time already and has now received a body blow. It was China which is now setting up a civil aircraft producing industry, and is developing its own counter part of FAA, which was the first to ground the 737 MAX thus troubling its own air lines who are the largest users of the type.
12
@Jao,
Perhaps a top commentator, William Case, might have some input on the above.
1
Why does the US tolerate so much more risk? Simple. "Our" Congress is bought and paid for by corporate donors and superpacs bought and paid for by corporate donors. The President of the Senate receives less than five percent of his donations from small donors under 200 dollars , 70 percent of his donations come from large donors and pacs. Nancy Pelosi does slightly better with 32 percent of her donations coming from small donors. Kevin McCarthy GETS LESS THAN ONE PERCENT from small donors. Let that sink in.
3
My answer to the headline... Pocket more money, production bonus and market shares. America and so many other countries became societies of grifters run by plutocrats behind their 'billionaires' estates walls and closed doors in fiscal paradises in less than 60 years.
Even if the American individuals could shift their focus from short term gratifications to more social solidarity, SCOTUS will now just bend over and acquiesce the orders under a thin coat of old respectable veneer. You know...that pillar, 'that rule of law thing' had great social value. It now eviscerates basic human hopes.
I think 'Americana' values are under the most virulent heist tentative since Truman. That idea makes me colossaly unhappy. Ruins some of my days. Too old and still too romantic with Americana, to accept that i've been conned by some really efficient Homo americanus economicus predators.
Any of you remembers : 'Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered' written by E. F. Schumacher, published in 73.
2
@Le Michel
so true, so sad.
The sad reason is that the Corporate money controls the government. More so with the Republicans, but also with the Democrats. Money drives everything from elections to policy. When I lived in Riverside, I was approached to run for Supervisor (a County office..) I was approached by the Democratic pols. I said I would run but wanted the funds given to me by "people" would not shown to me as I didn't want the pressure of money governing my policy if elected. The Democratic people said, "We will not allow that, thanks for being interested, but we don't want you." That's back in the late 1960's.
2
The Title: "Why Does the U.S. Tolerate So Much Risk?"
$urely thi$ i$ a rhetorical que$tion, right?
9
Answer to the question: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
7
Why? Government of Corporations. By Corporations. For Corporations. We haven't really moved beyond the deeply help belief of "What's good for GM is good for the Nation". Even most people making $7.25 an hour in the State of Kentucky (if voting patterns are any indicator) believe that if we take care of business first and foremost, somehow that will be good for the rest of us. Maybe some day, we'll all wake up. Hard to imagine though. And I get it - you can't have good social policy without a good economy. But giving Apple a $32 billion tax holiday or not requiring Amazon to pay any taxes at all. C'mon!
4
We tolerate much more risk than other developed countries because the American way of life is commercialism, not democratic socialism or free-market capitalism.
4
@AynRant
exactly!
Since its founding, America has embraced the myth of individualism. It's a crock, not good for almost anyone, and yet... Americans still believe it.
3
When we refuse to engage the precautionary principle and instead wait for evidence, we forget that evidence costs oodles of money. Money doesn’t grow on trees and So many consumer-oriented government budgets slashed. It is nearly always funded these days by corporations who can always make statistics lie if it serves them.
Why? $$$$$$$$$
3
$$$$$$
3
The oligarchs who control the country don't give a damn about the people who experience the risk. It's really that simple.
5
If you could find an honest man (or woman) on Wall Street, they'd give the same answers to the question many letter writers hsve already supplied. But this a when hell freezes over kind of suggestion. American capitalism may be carrying the seed of its own destruction, but until then, the collateral damage piles up. You want Capitalism with a human face? It's not the American way. Since we're in the New York Times, fuggedaboutit! And remember: Money talks, everybody and everything else just listen and obey. Ain't democracy grand? Or, ain't it a fraud?
1
"The United States" doesn't necessarily have a higher risk threshold--but those who occupy the nodes of power DO. That includes business--automatically seeking real "laissez faire," unfettered conditions--and the elected officials they buy and who do their bidding. That includes limits on regulatory activities that protect consumers and place limits on financial, manufacturing, and marketing practices of all sorts. And the courts, increasingly reflecting the same policy infiltration and selective, Scalia-like decisions, are backing business in skewing and skirting statutory and regulatory environments.
All of this is in service of Wild West behavior, of the sort that has given us any number of large-scale financial and product disasters. We will not do better, and "the United States" will not improve morally and ethically, until we reverse the decades-long slide into libertarian, neoliberal, neoconservative bondage.
2
Why? Because those in control - the well-to-do, with their bought and paid for politicians - make make more money that way.
1
I believe the FAA delegates its airworthiness certification process to, among others, aircraft manufacturers who have "Organization Designation Authorization". It must only occasionally monitor and approve their processes, not participate in them. It accepts their declarations of compliance as sufficient for a project to go ahead and receive certification. To me, this is an abdication of responsibilty, and the FAA's recent performance is proof of this.
1
I mean, it's subjective. Many Americans think certain European precautionary measures, such as its hesitance regarding GMO food, is not supported by science. In this case, the editorial board thinks the US's more relaxed stance is a mistake. OK, maybe it is. But in each case, there are people arguing both sides, and I bet the NYT isn't always on the European / cautious side. Just because NYT doesn't agree with THIS decision doesn't mean the approach in general is flawed. To draw that conclusion, NYT should examine a much larger body of data.
3
Why? Two words: Citizens United. Corporations are the only "individuals" that count.
3
"Why Does the U.S. Tolerate So Much Risk?"
You ask why? Surely a rhetorical question. The US has long been a corporate welfare state, increasingly so after WWII and accelerating more with the Reagan Restoration. Since John D. Rockefeller, the United States have more and more become the Corporate States.
It is widely known the outcome of excessive corporate control: Fascism. Soft fascism as now (read Sheldon Wolin regarding "inverted totalitarianism"), or the hard version. Trump's Freudian outbursts reflect the corporate/plutocratic compulsion: stifle the "free press" (already predominately owned by a corporate oligopoly, much of it not really US - Murdoch is a typical stateless oligarch), rouse the rabble to violence, feed the military to distract it, pack the courts with corporate stooges, act unilaterally as an increasingly rogue nation. Add to it the thinly disguised GOP "voter fraud" disenfranchisement moves, which Trump supports (Kris Kobach was embedded in his administration), so that popular will is thwarted. Voila!
This is nothing new, it's just intensified with soft Reaganist political control and the aid of tech-enabled communications and data control. It's instructive to note that the "We The People" aspiration in the Declaration of Independence was to further "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." By the time it came to a Constitution, that had been changed to "life, liberty and property."
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people." Haha.
2
Nostalgia for the days when the Cuyahoga River caught fire, maybe?
2
Anyone with the slightest decency and common sense would have grounded this plane long before the U.S. did. Welcome to the U.S. where the dollar is king and people's lives and safety come last.
4
Regulation, regulation of any kind, was made a central premise of evil by his holiness Ronald Reagan, patron saint of profits over lives to conservatives of all stripes. It is now at warp speed under the Junta of Trump and the lickspittle Republican acolytes in Congress. Astronomical amounts of money has flowed, not to the middle class or poor, but to 1%ers like the ones typifird by those who bought their spawn seats they didn't earn at elite universities. Until a re-balancing of priorities, tilted to human needs, and not money, will this change. Healthcare, affordable drugs, and education, clean water and air, a Marshall Plan of education, at state universities, junior colleges, and high quality training in the trades for starters.
3
Because the elites that dictate our values to us prize money even more than the elites in other societies.
1
We face more risk because our government has been captured by large corporations. It is that simple.
Money isn't the most important thing in this country; it is the ONLY thing.
"Communism is man oppressing man; capitalism is the other way around." - J.K. Gailbraith
3
What can one expect from a society utterly bereft of respect for human life on every level ? There is a euphemism for the American Way : it's called 'benign neglect. Simply deny the existence of serious and chronic problems by sweeping them under the carpet and chalking things up to 'the will of god'.
2
The other commenters say greed and money in corporate America, and that is true. Another reason is that the US citizens are generally brainwashed and many are masochists who love pain and suffering. The people could be for more safety but they are not, they are for more pollution, more gun deaths, more drug deaths and no health care. That is what the people want. They show us all this every time they vote.
2
Why 2 years into the Administration is there no appointed head? Having an acting person in such an important job as pertains to global safety, is insane. I hope the other countries not only sue Boeing, but also the US government as run be this incompetent leader. What other agencies are not staffed appropriately and will risk our lives next?
2
Corporate greed.
1
The Ford Pinto of the skies! If anyone still thinks the US government exists primarily to protect and serve the people, please go back to sleep.
4
Unconstrained Capitalism conjoined with the unrestrained infusion of money in politics has debased our nation. No money-making scheme, regardless of obvious perceived harm, is presently nipped in the bud for the public good. Unfortunately greed reigns supreme.
1
The answer to the title of this Op Ed is, " greed." We have decided that money is more important than life...and thus, Trump.
2
If you’ve flown Southwest in the last year or so, then you’ve probably flown on a Boeing 737 Max 8. If you’re reading this comment, then you’re still here...
1
Why Does the U.S. Tolerate So Much Risk?
Why, we're not sissies like those other folks! We're the land of the free and the brave! The personal responsibility men and women!
Now, where are guns and my walls.
1
You could have extended your comparison to FAANG, the digital majors, that have little to fear in the US but 'suffer' a higher scrutiny in Europe, not a bad idea as the Roinga genocide, the Cambridge Analytica scandal or the Christchurch shooting have shown, just to name a few (for Facebook only).
1
Is there really anyone on the NYT editorial board who doesn’t already know the answer?
In the 737 case, huge conflict of interest between manufacturers, airlines and the federal government driven by the almighty buck.
The same problem we have with guns.
1
Why? Greed.
1
But...but...I thought The Market would always take care of us? The Repubs keep preaching that we don't need regulations, because The Market and its players are benevolent and have our best interests at heart.
You mean...as a consumer, uh...sorry, citizen...I'm not being cared for by American Corps? That Govt agencies whose mandate it is to protect us...don't care to do so, and are now so understaffed and underfunded - on purpose - that we're out here blowing in the wind...?
Wow...Im really starting to feel like I'm being lied to...and the occupants of the White House are the bigliest liar and schemer of them all...
I really need to fix myself a cocktail, put on some soothing music, dim the lights, sit in my favorite chair and mull this over...I'm shaken...
2
Because our lives are dominated by:
1. The wealthy; and
2. Right wing zealots who hate the government and love their guns and Bibles.
2
What a silly question. Unfettered capitalism. Duh.
3
In the days after the Boston bombing a fertilizer company blew a Texas town off the map their liability insurance? 1 million
2
Blame Ronald Reagan.
2
"Why does the U.S. tolerate so much risk?" says the NYT Editorial Board as evidenced by two terrible aircraft crashes that sadly killed almost 400 people?
In 2017 more than 37,000 people died in non-flying motor vehicles in the U.S.
2
@Cecil Scott A recent study of traffic circles, which are replacing major intersections all over Europe, found that they reduce accidents by 80%. In France, the maximum normal speed limit was reduced at the beginning of the year to 80 km an hour resulting in some grumbling. Numbers like those in the US, 10.9 road fatalities per 100,000 per year, can be compared with France... 5.1. Those figures represent actual deaths of mothers, dads, uncles, children. "Why does the US tolerate so much risk?"
1
Because the almighty dollar is the GOP’s god.
2
Let's put this another way - "Why do other countries have such little regard for freedom of choice? Why do those other governments think they always know what's best for their people and want to micro-manage their lives?
4
So in your ideal world where customer has freedom of choice, before I buy a plane ticket I should check the safety record of the airline, the safety record of the actual plane being used including all the component suppliers to Boeing, the safety record of the airport I’m departing from and landing, verify the health of the pilot etc etc? There is a reason for regulations; it’s that we don’t live in the Stone Age where it was just a band of people. We live in a massively interconnected system where no individual has the capacity to decipher all the information. Hence experts write laws that politicians pass hopefully for the benefit of the masses. Freedom is such a maligned term in the US today; usually by those who have no inkling about the complexity of the world we inhabit today.
3
@Michael T
In lots of cases, regulations are actually put in place by governments to benefit big businesses, Why can't you buy American rice in Japan? Because the Japanese rice industry doesn't want the competition.
But, if you are really focused on protecting people's health, I guess you are in favor of tight regulation of marijuana since in some cases, it can be hazardous. And, clearly, there is a powerful pro-marijuana lobby pushing for removing laws against it.
1
It isn't just about risk-taking.
It is about a general contempt for customers (and employees) as human beings, and this is all part of the American version of capitalism: "every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost."
2
That is because Trump thinks he has a commercial job. It has nothing to do with people. His family and friends do not fly that type of planes. It is about being above it all.
The US tolerates hundreds of children being shot every year. The US allows higher levels of cancer in its citizens than many other countries. The US seems unbothered by maternal and infant mortality rates that would be unthinkable in any other G7 country. Concern about levels of pesticides, or relaxed attitudes toward flight safety - both of which are emblematic of the US's longstanding privileging of corporations over citizens - rather pale by comparison.
5
We desperately need clean air, earth, and water.
Existing regulations were not keeping pace with our vast new chemical universe, where small enterprises fail because billionaires eliminate variety and provide cheap goods. They also export our pollution and take away our jobs.
Military bases are now coming up with evidence of toxic waste. We already know that coal plants ruin watersheds and shed more radiation than nuclear plants. And on and on.
One could cite chapter and verse, but for god's sake people, no matter what or who you have faith in, surely you can perceive that we inhabit one hospitable habitable finite earth. Going somewhere else costs billions, and isn't nearly as safe.
Surely we can work together to solve these problems, rather than handing over profits to those who already have the power and wealth.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Reality is real; 2D entertainment only lasts as long as you have somewhere to view and power to run it. Which is more important, do you think?
2
The tragedy in Ethiopia should not blind readers to the facts about airline safety in the United States. I have spent my entire career, 50 years, in and near the airline industry, so I have some perspective on just how safe our business is. Two pieces of hard fact, not opinion:
In the last decade, U.S. scheduled airlines have operated more than 90 million departures, with only one fatality.
But since most of us are not good at interpreting very large numbers, let me explain it this way: if you flew one flight a day, every day of the year, it would be more than 100,000 years before you would have a 50-50 chance of dying in a plane crash in the United States. That’s a long time.
Those remarkable numbers didn’t just happen, but were the result of tireless work by airlines, their unions, and aircraft and engine manufacturers, including Boeing.
5
@Robert Britton
Most commenting here don't deal in numbers, they deal in irrational emotion.
@Robert Britton
I understand this perspective, however when the public reads headlines like this:
“Boeing Promised Pilots a 737 Software Fix Last Year, but They’re Still Waiting” ( NYTimes)
it is difficult to keep that in mind.
Since you are an expert in this area, could you comment further @ Boeing’s lag?
Europe to companies: "Demonstrate that your product will not cause harm before we allow you to sell it".
The USA to companies: "Go ahead and sell your product; if somebody dies, maybe we'll get involved."
5
The only risk the Republicans are unwilling to accept is the risk of losing political power. For them, all of the other risks imposed on the public by their mania for deregulation are hardly worth mentioning. If voters want more safeguards in their lives, they need to vote for Democrats.
1
As an American living in Europe, I can easily say it is because American democracy (both parties) are beholden to corporate interests. There are so many examples of this, I would need more space to list them all. This is not Editorial-board-worthy groundbreaking news, but just plain obvious to most people living outside the United States.
7
Our leaders lie, cheat, steal, mislead - are bought by the rich and powerful - we could set up computers that would run our nation - nothing is perfect - program them based on math and science mixed in with statistics and logic - surely it would be an improvement - the people could vote on issues such as plan a. b. c. or d. All methods to resolve Social Security going forward among many other issues. Computers now beat humans in Chess and the game Go. If not now - not far off - maybe when they replace us driving cars and trucks and saving lots of lives.
God forbid we should REGULATE business. Let the alleged injured parties sue in our courts that have "right-minded" judges.
3
Those of us who are international management consultants specializing in intercultural issues have long recognized that risk-taking is a fundamental value in the American collective cultural unconscious. When we Americans look at other cultures, one of the things we look for is their tolerance of risk. We tend to have contempt for low-risk cultures and admiration for high-risk cultures. Example: the stock exchange. In some countries there is a tendency to avoid it, and to stick with savings accounts & other less risky financial products. Our admiration for risk-taking was partly born of our ancestors' venturing to cross the ocean to an unknown, unsettled continent. With risk-taking goes Optimism, another key American value. I warn French managers going to the U.S. not to use the word "problem," telling them to say "issue" instead. Americans see the French as pessimists. The French see themselves as realists.
5
As many have said, we have the best Government that money can buy!
3
With this administration, the most corrupt in American history, the wolves are guarding the hen house. I simply don’t get it. Don’t Republicans, breathe, eat, and drink like the rest of us? The devastation that this administration has wrought in the safety of our air, water, soil, and products will be adversely impacting Americans for generations. Their greed and fealty to corporations knows no bounds. They are morally bankrupt beyond redemption.
5
Why Does the U.S. Tolerate So Much Risk?
That's an easy question.
"...money doesn't talk, it swears"
- Bob Dylan
1
Because the law and penalties are such that risk (even breaking the law) is a win-win if you have money and power. The worst of the wild west attitude still abounds.
Look at the banks, risk, negligence and outright rottenness paid them handsomely. Not even any jail time! It was even a shot in the arm for them, they are doing better than ever. The people who went bankrupt, lost everything: homes, jobs, businesses, savings, future well-being, livelihoods and even lives —not so much—they do not count!
2
I agree. However, why would the same NYT that endorses the censorship by Amazon and Facebook, not give recognition the CDC is not providing citizens with the very best science to make safer vaccines? The health and well-being of the American people is not to be counterbalanced by the interests of profit making businesses. We can and we must do better and also be honest and transparent about it.
Corporate leaders worship money, genuflect to shareholders, and disdain the masses. This President and many of his appointees and political supporters lack any moral fiber. They take all credit, point fingers of blame, swaddle themselves in wealth, and let losers pay for whatever risks arise. That's why the U.S. tolerates so much risk.
2
For the love of money.
2
It’s because we are “consumers”, not citizens.
7
Interesting that the same Editorial Board doesn't ask the same thing about vaccine manufacturers. The Times Editorial Board ignores the the vaccine manufacturers a shielded from lawsuits and that the Vaccine Court, created by law under Reagan, has handed out over 4 billion to vaccine injured people and their families. The Times Editorial board falsely says that vaccines are safe and doesn't even bother to read the information on vaccine inserts. I challenge you to do stories on vaccine injured children - interview the parents. Speak to RFK Jr about his findings. Let's see some real courage.
@Lisanne Found this on Wikipedia: "No evidence has been found to support a link between autism spectrum disorders and vaccines and the scientific consensus is that routine childhood vaccines have no link to the development of autism. Despite this, some parents of children with autism spectrum disorders have attributed the disorders' onset to vaccines, and more than 5,300 parents have filed petitions at the vaccine court. The vaccine court dismissed the suits and ruled that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism." Was this your issue?
Yet the US requires pilots to have much more experience, perhaps one reason these Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft have not crashed in the US.
1
Because "profits over people" is now the norm and norms are incredibly difficult to change.
4
The FAA and most of the regulatory agencies have been emasculated and made spineless and pretty much useless by mostly Republican administrations. The fact that the FAA allowed Boeing to fly an airframe that is fundamentally unstable, without any serious independent safety study, is astounding. There should be a criminal investigation of the whole decision making process regrading the 7373 MAX both at Boeing and at the FAA.
2
It’s really a simple answer. It all boils down to money and big lobbying machines that’s in our nations capital. Corporations pouring millions of dollars into political campaigns..
2
Simple. It's because those of us who bear the risk don't vote in the same numbers as other countries and as a result our elected leaders are free to pursue corrupt lobbying money with little fear of retribution.
2
The EU’s early grounding of a Boeing product was a self serving act that had nothing to do with a lesser tolerance for risk and everything to do with money and competition. As the owner of Boeing’s only rival - Airbus- the EU is doing everything it can to weaken Boeing in the market.
4
This editorial piece poses an overly simplistic question. The risk of continued 737 Max flight has many components. These include the regulatory climate of airframe testing and certification; aircraft monitoring and maintenance; pilot training, certification, expertise, and continued education; and FAA oversight of the flight operation environment, among other factors that are operative in the US versus elsewhere. It is possible to assess that all of these factors taken together contribute to substantially greater risk in the operation of a Thai and an Ethiopian aircraft than a US airliner. And these additional factors might make a plane that is safe in the US airspace less safe elsewhere. I do not think this is a claim of US exceptionalism, but I do not believe it is obvious that the FAA has a greater risk tolerance than ex-US regulators when one accounts for the safety outcomes that result from how it exercises oversight over all aspects of the flight process. This is evident in the US flight safety record vis-à-vis the rest of the world. The last fatal US airline crash was a decade ago.
4
Another example that the US has the finest government money can buy. From the electoral system (thanks, Citizens United) to the ongoing operation of Congress the role of money from corporate to 'other' sources shows repeatedly that money can and does buy favorable legislation. And some folks have grown wealthy while 'serving' the public. Until these influences are controlled, government in the US will continue to serve their corporate masters. And government of the people, by the people and for the people is at best an aspirational goal.
2
Corporations have always put a dollar value on human life and until recently no corporate head would be punished with anything more then a fine.
When it can be shown that a corporation knew about a problem and let it continue, then the heads of the organization need real jail time to atone for their doing.
Good luck with that.
4
Why the risk? Surely it's not the money. After all, corporations are people, and people have consciences. Right? RIGHT?
4
C-A-S-H. Corporations are people too, my Friends. Very, very RICH People.
Vote : 2020. Straight Democratic Ticket.
7
"Why Does the U.S. Tolerate So Much Risk?"
Money.
5
Clearly the answer is because here in the US the role of the people is to provide fodder for corporations.
We are fodder.
6
@Pat
Agreed. Too often, the consequences of risk are born by the public while the "too big to fail" or "big enough to buy elections" private interests reap the rewards.
1
Because the powers that be in the US care more about money than the lives of people.
6
This is not a difficult question. The answer is greed, combined with ignorance.
4
There's no need to write such a long winded answer to the question Why does e U.S. tolerate so much risk? The answer is simple: money.
2
First of all, we are not "consumers." We are people. If we are recognized as people instead of as "consumers," perhaps it will be recognized that our very lives are not to be "tested" (like guinea pigs) and that our lives have value other than monetary. This means better testing & regulation not only of transportation, but food, air, water, pharmaceuticals, supplements, decent affordable housing, access to education, access to justice, ad infinitum. Did I mention regulating firearms? Human beings are more than the sum of our "net worth" or economic "potential."
3
Rhetorical question, right?
Two words for the paradigm: Citizens United.
3
Money first, before human lives.
My first thought when I heard the decision not to ground the planes.
I like to call it Reagan's Legacy because the Republican Party still has the fire burning hot for the .01%.
From killing our kids with opioids, to our water, air, food and governance.
Not only buy your own congress person.. buy your own congress now the way you want it. Money is free speech.
4
I suspect the FAA's ban on the Max 8 came only after some wise person at the White House told Trump that there would be a huge political price to pay if one had crashed after Boeing's CEO had asked Trump to do nothing.
3
We know that money, greed and avarice are the root of American political evil.
And you can pretend that 'both sides do it' if you love false equivalence.
But the reality is that there is one political political organization in the United States that leads the way over the cliffs of greed that destroys American society for a few dollars.
It is the party that fought hard for the right-wing Citizens United decision, the McCutcheon decision, unlimited 0.1% moneyed 'speech' (99.9% silence), corporate people, voter suppression, zero regulation, zero oversight, and unfettered Greed Over People while whipping up the masses into a white supremacist, gun-laden, religious rage.
It is the destructive Republican Party that refuses to fund the FAA, the IRS, the EPA, the SEC, the FTC and many other critical government oversight functions that protect 325 million Americans.
Decent people do not vote for Republican nihilists who have done everything in their power to destroy the American government, its treasury, its democracy and its own people.
D to go forward; R for radical, right-wing Republican oligarchy and greed.
11
Why does the US tolerate so much risk?
Because corporations have successfully sold to the rubes the idea that regulation Destroys Their Freedoms.
4
... because we're tough and quite unlike those euro - wimps.
1
Why Does the U.S. Tolerate So Much Risk?
What a silly question. Does NY Times Board read the NY Times ?
"Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, reacting to the delay, called Boeing “one of the 800-pound gorillas around here.” Last year, the company spent about $15 million on lobbying. "
The answer is : No other Western Nations allow corporations to buy politicians as the US does
4
Simple. The GOP values money over lives.
2
Corporate greed and Citizens United. There's your answer ... with an illegitimate Supreme Court adding to the problem.
1
To quote a recent tweet by a Congresswoman: It's the Benjamins, baby.
1
What does the U.S. tolerate so much risk?
Because capitalism has been allowed to run amuck, unfettered in the US. It started in earnest with the Reagan administration, when so-called free-market capitalism became a religion that was sacred, never to be questioned, and could do no wrong.
But don't blame Adam Smith. Although Smith said that capitalism is a good economic system, he had a caveat that the right-wing Wall Street titans & its Republican priests and pundits forgot to mention. Smith said capitalism only works if the capitalists behave responsibly & are held accountable.
It is the responsibility & accountability part that the American trickle-down, de-regulating, business-model capitalist archbishops have worked decades to obliterate. No! corporations need not be good citizens and pay their fair share of taxes! No need to please customers or employees; just please investors and maximize profits (thank you Milton Friedman).
How to do that? Get the government working for corporations, and get the government off the backs of business. How? Buy the politicians to do corporate bidding--all perfectly legal, with Citizens United, secret PACs, and campaign finance loopholes--no democratic nation would tolerate
Voila! Government no longer needs to care about society or people. It helps to have a Republican army enforce the cult and Fox News propagandizing to keep the middle and working class in the fold voting against their best interest.
Priority: $$ over people
5
@PB Bingo.
Why?
Because corporate America runs the country.
2
The question raised by this NY Times article is at best a ludicrous example of intellectual naivete, and at its very worst extremely disingenuous. What do you expect when a strictly business-minded individual with a perverted value system runs (?) our federal government? Let's face it, what we have in this country at present is the wildlife equivalent of putting a ferocious and hungry lion in charge of weaker and lesser animals.
The chickens of unfettered capitalism, pursuit of dollars as the only proxy for success, are coming home to roost. Welcome to MAGAland.
1
Executive Greed.
1
Greed for profits above anything else
1
Was there additional "risk" to continue to let airlines decide for themselves if the planes they flew were safe.
The NYT seems to be forgetting that the Lion Air crash was caused by bad maintenance of Lion Air (AoA sensors that failed on multiple flights prior) and bad communication by Boeing to airlines. Ethiopian says they retrained 737Max pilots on the MCAS system after Lion Air. Perhaps these pilots didn't fully grasp the additional guidance or maybe the cause of this crash and the Lion Air crash are completely different.
A lot of speculation has been reported as "facts" recently.
Profit over people. It's really as simple as that. Corporations want huge profits; CEOs want huge bonuses; shareholders want their profits. Little people be quite literally dammed. This is why there are so many superfund sites. We pass risk onto the taxpayers. It's wholly unsustainable.
2
Citizens united and dark money
1
As Trump’s son has said, the only color his father cares about is green.
1
When the population scream loud enough and long enough to get the attention of the companies or governments they listen. But ONLY it affect the bottom line!
1
The rest of the world used to look to the United States as the gold standard for how to behave, how to act, and how to react. That is no longer the case. I don't even need to tell you the reason why. My bigger concern is whether or not we can redeem ourselves in the eyes of the world, and indeed, whether or not we deserve to be redeemed. That will depend upon what we do from here on out, particularly on November 3. 2020, if not sooner. My fellows citizens, it is time to act. Not with revenge, or bitterness, or hate, but with resolve. In the words of the old government program, VISTA, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem".
3
This isn't a failure of government, nor of business. It's a failure of society. Fundamentally, it's a failure of our morals and ethics combined, and speaks poorly of us as a people...we value our personal wealth over our fellow citizens, or fail to see others as equals. Somebody please tell me how we fix that.
3
Maybe Europe would be a little more risk tolerant if the planes were manufactured by AirBus.
1
I'd like to see some more reporting behind this opinion. While the grounding of the Boeing planes is certainly topical (and we certainly have our 2d Amendment), what about drug approvals and prescription requirements, building codes, workplace safety, alcohol drinking ages, automobile speed limits and car safety features? This is just a short list that comes to mind.
3
In comparing the European and American decisions regarding the grounding of the 737 Max, it would be interesting to think about how the decisions might have been different if the plane involved was an Airbus and not a Boeing. Since both the USA and the Europeans came to the same conclusion and grounded the 737 Max, we are really talking about why did it take the USA longer than it took the Europeans. It is entirely reasonable to think that had it been an Airbus that crashed, the Europeans might have taken longer than the Americans to ground the planes. Of course, we can never know, but as many of the commentators point out, we should follow the money.
1
Money. The citizens don’t make policy, business does.
1
Money is more important for certain (even a lot of) businesses than safety.
2
It is simply because the large USA corporations have so much influence on the politicians - Republicans in particular, that result in favourable ruling for the corporations, which is often at odds with the environment, workers, rights, wages, benefits, etc.....
Although every political party has some baggage - I'd say the Democrats have a lot less.
3
Actually the government shutdown was a dare. It was like daring the fleet of airplanes to go wrong. Except that the airplanes called the President’s bluff.
2
It may be that this is built into the American soul. The Challenger disaster had been foretold by engineers who were then overruled by NASA officials. The Columbia was known to have suffered a hit from material during launch, then was next to the ISS for quite a while, yet nobody bothered to have it roll for a visual examination with the result that it incinerated on reentry.
The Columbia is particularly poignant, since on one of the early flights a shuttle suspected to have been damaged was examined tile by tile by cameras on Kwajalein Atoll during fly-bys.
In contrast, the USSR's Buran made its first (and only) flight with nobody on board.
2
The Triangle Shirtwaist Company factory disaster in New York City, the Woburn Massachusetts groundwater contamination, and arguably but notable for its corporate coverup Morton Thiokol and the Challenger disaster all are symptomatic of Corporate over reach. It is a theme in our modern history. The US or "we the people" do not tolerate this but it is forced upon us through lobbying by corporations. The legislatures are bought by the corporations and the lobbyists then write laws to protect them selves the corporations while at the same time repealing or subtly changing existing laws to keep their liability, otherwise know as costs, down. We the people do not like this. Corporate US loves it. Capitalism doesn't care and further, defines "life" in dollars. This valuation is not indicative of humanity but of greed. Most of this blame I would place squarely on perfectly legal government graft and corruption. When a corporation, like the gun manufacturers for instance, can use the US Senate and Congress to make laws to protect itself from any loss due to the use of one of its products, the AR 15 for instance, then what right does any individual have here anymore at all. Corporate lobbying is graft pure and simple. Money is the driver. I as one of we the people do not tolerate this risk. We really do need a better country and as you can see from my historical examples, we've needed it for a long time.
5
There was a time when the U.S. was more cautious than European countries, e.g. in allowing the sale of prescription drugs. The FDA was one of the most vigilant and diligent licensing agencies in ensuring the safety and efficiency of drugs before allowing them to be sold to the public. A case in point was the thalidomide scandal of the early fifties when that drug was prescribed in Europe to treat pregnant women for morning sickness, until it was discovered to have been the cause of severe birth defects. Fortunately it was not approved here in the U.S. What happened between then and now is in part marked by the passage of the vitamin and supplement act in the seventies in which politicians in the pocket of that industry allowed non-prescription drugs to be sold without having prove that they were safe. Another factor was the fast tracking of drugs that began in response to the AIDS epidemic in the late eighties in which drugs were approved for sale without having to undergo the rigorous but time consuming safety studies previously required. Now we even have direct marketing of prescription drugs to consumers, many of whom go to their doctors demanding the drugs without fully understanding the potential risks.
2
It is unclear who is framing the risk of flying in this aircraft. To downplay the risk one might use the number of flights per week x the number of weeks the type of plane has been flying.
For those who are risk averse, perhaps a more sobering assessment would be that there have been 354 ( as reported recently ) of these aircraft flying globally. Two of them have crashed.
Would you put your life on the line by boarding one of these knowing that 1 in 127 have already crashed?
This isn't some national risk tolerance that is higher than other countries. More like the political process is bought and paid so the fix is in. Corporations a "people," but with a LOT more money. And money aligns politicians like a magnet aligns iron filings.
1
The United States has one shining moment in regulatory history.Few are alive now to remember it. In the 1950’s There was a very popular drug developed and sold in Europe.A courageous woman physician working for the FDA would not approve it because of some suspected side effects.The woman was Dr,Francis Kelsey and the drug was thalidomide.President Kennedy awarded her the Medal Of Freedom for saving the United States from the scourge of babies born with limb abnormalities.We could use more Francis Kelsey’s- we could use more principled decision makers.
5
The Editorial Board seems eager to criticize both the FAA and Boeing for not acting more quickly in the absence of additional data, perhaps fairly. It is also fair to consider whether European regulators would have acted so quickly had the aircraft in question been built by Airbus and not by Boeing, the European company’s only competitor. Also pertinent to their decision is that the particular Lion Air 737 should have been taken out of service by the operator the day before the fatal flight for maintenance as it was clear then that there was a fault in the angle of attack (AOA) sensors which provide data to the MCAS. It has also been reported that Lion Air, like many low-cost operators worldwide, did not opt for an extra-cost instrumentation upgrade that provides an AOA Disagree warning light to alert the crew when the duplicate sensors conflict. There is only so much that regulators can do, and ultimately much is in the hands of individual airlines, crew, and a public that wants air travel to be as cheap as possible.
1
In addition, when the U.S. does demand that corporations must broadcast the risks of their products during televised advertisements, specifically pharmaceutical corporations, the public is exposed to constant double approach-avoidance conflicts. Imagine the airline industries having to provide similar warnings. A not untypical pharmaceutical warning advises that the use of a product may cause difficulty breathing, tremors or seizures and possibly death. Shouldn't airlines similarly alert television viewers during commercials that flying with them will get passengers to their destinations more quickly than with other travel modes, but that there are certain odds of crashing and incurring injuries or death? The announcer continues: In some cases, there is the possibility that passengers' bodies may never be found.
1
There are many other global danger risks coming from the USA that are not described here.
We could cite : the US gigantic tobacco industry which fro decades denied the health risks of smoking and continued lying and advertising to sell more.
Today still the danger of soda drinks from the USA that have changed the physical conditions of kids everywhere in the world creating a grave danger of obesity and diabetes.
The danger of fast food plagued with sugar and using massive amounts of plastic as well as sustaining a monocultural agriculture .
The danger of fertilizers used extensively and contaminating the water underground ressources everywhere in the world.
The dangers of pesticides used to sustain industrial monoculture and putting the diversity of natural species in grave danger of extinction.Notably the decimation of bees, a potential fatal issue for the planet.
Finally the refusal of the USA to admit and comply to the fighting of global warming due to the use of fossil products.
All of these major problems of global dangers are American.
Not just air planes not stopped because of technical defect or bisphenol. The whole culture of using plastic by Americans is a great threat to humanity and ecology.Plastic is everywhere is the food chain: in fish, water, etc...
All these serious problems are considered " not certain " by a majority of US citizens.
5
It looks like the FAA and the airlines knew that their pilots understood the override procedures that the manual neglected to illustrate. Big negligence there but not critically unsafe to fly under the bright lights and adrenalin of the current situation.
As to our risk assessment polices, I’d say that the current Ayn Rand / Trump passive aggressive stance and glorification of intolerance have spread a fog of trigger happy attitudes to the general public.
3
The example of arsenic in drinking water is a good example. USEPA set a drinking water standard of 5 part per billion. This standard was set based more on saving small water supply systems (think towns less than 100,000 people) money from having to provide treatment, than the protection of public heath. I think the risk level was , say 1 in a million, for cancer or death from drinking too much water (2 liters a day) with 5 part per billion of arsenic. EPA also then required more testing and monitoring for arsenic, and low an behold, there were many small systems that would have to add treatment to remove arsenic to meet that standard, than originally thought. So. EPA then "recalculates" the standard, based on say 1 in 100,000 risk level for cancer or death, and raises the standard to 10 part per billion, double the 5 standard. This level of arsenic actually was then found to be even more toxic, based on better science (I know a bad word in these days ;)) and had to lower the standard back to 5 parts per billion. How much arsenic do you want to drink and what level of risk is acceptable to you
1
Boeing has orders for 5000 similar planes. At about 120 million a pop that is $600 billion in sales. Add to that the revolving door between Boeing and the FAA and the reason that the US tolerates so much risk becomes painfully clear.l
3
In any field of human activity, if bad conduct does not have punitive consequences, the bad will eventually drive out the good.
11
Rick Steves put it best in an episode of his show about Travel as a political act. European countries operate capitalism for the benefit of the people in spite of business,
US capitalism is operated for the benefit of business in spite of the people.
Voodoo economics has won for now, despite Adam Smith warning about business' interests not aligning with the public good in 1776.
Thank you conservatives.
7
Captured regulatory agencies in the US are toothless by design. It’s not a question of precaution and uncertainty: look at the Trump administration dismantling all manner of regulation. The “climate change uncertainty” argument is vacuous at this point.
2
The level of corruption of our institutions is breathtaking. To me the most glaring is the FDA. The FDA does everything in its power to protect the medical industry. One way it is doing is this is how it tries to damage natural health. According to the Poison Center, nobody has died from the use of supplements. By contrast, opioids , to name just one, is killing 60,000+ Americans per year; drugs declared safe by the same FDA. Fifty thousand or so died from Vioxx, yet the FDA never took it off the market. Half a dozen allegedly died from ephedra and it was off the market within two weeks. The FDA has rarely found a pharmaceutical drug it didn't love. And guess what the industry essentially owns and operates the FDA and Congress. It is only when Pharma's interests are not on the line that it puts importance on citizens. And then there is the issue of chemicals in our food and personal care products. Companies are allowed to label any chemical ingredient they like as GRAS without a peep from the FDA and EPA.
And let me finish with the media: the Pharma advertising dollar has resulted in censorship of any anti-Pharma information; e.g., no articles on vaccine safety are ever published other than propaganda pieces claiming they are safe. Hint, the Supreme Court said they were "unavoidedly unsafe". And why would vaccine makers need protection from lawsuits if they were. That, folks, is censorship!
4
The US does more than tolerate risk. It allows it's citizens to be personal Guinea pigs to corporate malfeasance.Medical devices or drugs rushed to market too soon. Dragging their feet on known carcinogens in a common fertilizer already banned in Europe.The fossil fuel industries insistence that the poisons they are putting in the earth and water are "proprietary secrets." Corporations so concerned with their bottom line they've failed to guard Americans data. Why does it happen? Our government is in complete regulatory capture. The election of Trump completed the coup. Republicans are packing the courts with corporate bootlickers whose soul mission is to preserve the deeply unbalanced status quo. Give a hat tip to the Conservative Supreme Court, Mitch McConnell, think tanks, ALEC, the US Chamber of Commerce and all the political sock monkeys they purchase for favorable legislation. We have an inequitable, top down government where the immoral has become legal thanks to the free flow of cash and no accountability.
12
"Risk" is a bottom-line accounting issue in a society where corporations have the same rights as people and profit trumps public safety. How many times have we seen companies calculate that the risk and expense of defending or settling lawsuits outweigh the cost of correcting a defective product or lucrative business practice? In the US, we believe in the right to make a profit above all. Dangerous products, toxic pollution of air, water, soil, food ... We all pay the price, sometimes with our lives. But that's a risk moneymaking enterprises are willing to take.
2
Our national Idolatry of Deregulation has brought many dire consequences to consumers since it was invented in the 1980's as an agitprop device to transfer wealth to the Ruling Class. Now it may plausibly be the cause of our Extinction. Globally.
2
The theme of the article is a bit off target. For one thing Boeing is an American company while competing Air Bus is European. But further, the U.S. banned smoking in restaurants and public places many years before Europe. The U.S, has been the leader in automobile and highway safety. The FDA is recognized as the world wide gold standard for drug approval and drug safety. In our National Parks and certain other situations Europeans as compared to Americans are notorious for disregarding posted safety rules and regulations. In addition Europe has long used bogus safety rules to block competition with U.S. exports, GMOs being a classic example. So the theme of the article is far from being universally accurate.
1
Boeing is an American manufacturer. I can’t help but wonder if the US would have grounded this particular plane more quickly had it been an Airbus of European origin. Maybe, maybe not, but it does give me pause.
2
Well, higher than SOME other nations.
China, and India, represent the worst case, in my opinion.
Here ?
Lobbying is the dominant influence; things that everyone agrees should be managed one way, are managed another because our politicians are corrupt and insulated from liability.
We should remove all indemnification from all politicians, and all corporate officers.
The other influence, though, is knowledge. An educated society is capable of understanding complex risk scenarios and the math behind risk estimation.
Flying has become very safe, but it isn't perfect.
Reading theairline trade media, instead of inflammatory news media like the N Y Times, one sees that many professional pilots are all saying it's the lack of pilot training that is the likely cause, and not a fundamental flaw in aircraft design.
They weren't been trained on the new MCAS behavior, and reacted incorrectly.
1
@Objectivist: It is enormously tiring to pilot airplanes by stick and rudder, so pilots don't do it much, particularly in jets cruising at high altitudes where speed and angle of attack must be precise.
Either there's a software bug, or those huge high-mounted engines suck so much air on climb-out that they make the angle of attack sensors read falsely.
American corporations regard the vast majority of Americans as expendable. So do the vast majority of Republicans in Congress, as well as the Trump administration. For them, it's a no -brainer, let's gamble that we won't be forced to put the health or safety of people above our profits. Frankly, in this case I think Boeing was saved from itself. If there had been another crash this past week, it would have been the end of the company (I would hope).
7
This may be off the wall somewhat, but it may be related to our criminal codes where innocence is presumed until proven otherwise.
Why? Because our government is bought and paid for by corporate interests.
There. Saved you about 700 words.
9
The consistency of these comments is striking. In short, follow the money.
363
@Juliana Sadock Savino always follow the money.
2
The answer to the question in your headline is corruption.
3
Greed.
4
Wonder if the chumminess between Boing CEO and our President, and their chat soon after the Ethiopian Airlines plane, had anything to do with the delay in grounding the planes!
2
$$$$$$$$$$$
5
You are kidding, right?:
Make America great again.
Regulation sucks.
America first.
Boeing is an American company.
Who should I make the check out to, Mr. Trump?
2
Deregulated free for all Crapitalism, obviously.
Most of the civilised world have mixed economies but in the USA if there's a buck to be made, who cares how many die.
3
Follow the money.
1
Freedumb!!! USA!! USA!!
4
It’s probably not a coincidence that the Boing crashes & the college admissions scandal are almost simultaneous. Our ruling class is proving incompetent, having inherited vast wealth but little expertise from the previous generation. But that’s how societies evolve.
376
@JGSD
Exactly right. And that is why the founders of this country didn't want a hereditary ruling class. You can't be visionary and aim to preserve the status quo at the same time.
68
@JGSD " But that’s how societies evolve."
Or that's how societies devolve and dissolve. I think we are experiencing the latter.
42
@JGSD Unfortunately they are all too competent in protecting their interests.
14
This plane has flown many thousands of times in the US without incident. Grounding the plane is not simply an economic consideration for both the manufacturer and airlines but a major inconvenience for fliers who have seen a large number of flights canceled. There should be evidence that there is a danger to the traveling public before we take the drastic step of grounding an airplane.
22
@John Correction. This plane has flown thousands of times in the US without a catastrophic accident. Incidents? There have been a number of documented incidents bearing the characteristics of the two crashes, and a number of reports and complaints from pilots. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.
128
@John
You don’t think two catastrophic crashes in 5 months is evidence of danger to the flying public? Why? Just because the crashes didn’t happen in the US? I’m sure not gonna fly on one of those planes, ever. I don’t care if they provide a software patch.
86
@John
Why is it that the burden of proof is upon proving the danger, when actually the opposite should be true?
98
Why? I worked for some of the riches people and corporations in the Mahoning Valley. What I learned was this. People tend to look up to the rich and powerful. It's not just that they might think the rich and powerful are special, it was (at lest it seems so) that they wanted something from the rich and powerful, money, status and keeping their job. So people will act in a way that subverts their own power or truth in order to receive payment. Sometimes I don't blame the rich and powerful it's the way WE treat them, they/we don't seem to know better.
In our country now it seems that with so many with power and position gaming the system that even our institutions and regulatory bodies are afraid to act, confused as it were to carry out their responsibilities.
Time to reset the parameters of powers in this country again, is there a Teddy Roosevelt or John Sherman out there?
169
@Keith Barkett: Rich is simply a measure of how much money they have. Powerful is a result of what the populace mindlessly affords the rich. We need to disabuse the general populace of the notion that because someone's succeeded as a carnival barker and all round huckster (45), or becoming a mega barista (Howard Schultz) he has the wisdom, integrity and vision to assume a role in public policy.
29
@Keith Barkett yes, his name is Bernie Sanders.
16
@Keith Barkett Yes and her name is Elizabeth Warren
18
Most commenters here seem to think the answer to the headline's question is greed. While I agree greed is a factor, I think a lot of Americans have the idea that laws and regulations by nature challenge individual freedom. Unlike Europeans, Americans can't seem to comprehend the many ways laws and regulations actually enhance our freedom.
36
The answer is simple. It's because our political system only represents the interests which finance our politicians. The other 99.9% of us count for nothing.
471
The Answer: Money. Profit. The greed of some Americans catapults them to completely disregard the safety and health of the populace. It costs money to conduct safety tests. It costs money to dispose of pollutants 'correctly' without doing harm to people. Too many corporations and their Board of Directors simply do not want to delay or cut into the profit margin.
The Answer: Money. Profit. Greed.
6
It is the American way. Regulation bad. Self regulation good. After all, what harm would business cause their customers?
1
The Supreme Court has made US politics all about money by emasculating campaign finance laws and giving corporations full rights to participate in politics. As a consequence, the cost of running a campaign has skyrocketed, such that most politicians spend more time raising money than anything else. The cost to society is that politicians are beholden to big money. Anyone who stands in the way of monied interests is a socialist. And then there's Fox news selling this system to Joe the plumber.
13
Is the editorial board blind to what has been happening in the US?
The corporate lobbyists are involved in every piece of legislation that comes out of DC. They write the tax code for the legislators and pour monies into their defeat or success depending on how they vote.
Citizens United was the one of the bells tolling the death of our democracy.
The media giants are all corporations who guide and skew the news to their liking.
The vast military budget is guided by those who make the tanks, arms, submarines, ships, planes and drones. The companies that rebuild the countries destroyed by our wars benefit greatly by our empire building. Few object to these bloated obscene budgets.
Yet they object to the poor getting food stamps. They say the market solves all problems, Yet, homelessness is not in their vision. The young are saddled with enormous student debt. Yet our Billionaire President and others use the bankruptcy code to their advantage. The highways and bridges crumble, libraries close and the 1 percent fiddle away as Rome burns.
24
@Jim
True, true, but the NYT is one of those companies. Don't realize that? Wait a little. The Times will come out in favor of a Wall Street approved candidate, like Gillibrand, Booker, Harris or Biden.
1
It's primarily because Republicans believe in limited government. Reagan: "Government is the problem".
And, in turn, they believe this because they're afraid that "those people" will get "our" money.
7
It’s quite simple, really.
America is the laboratory used for product testing by international corporate conglomerates.
Why else would there be so many prescription drug commercials? Side effects may include extreme vertigo, and death.
6
@ubique. side effects include poverty
”The United States has a higher threshold than other developed nations for allowing corporations to risk the health and safety of consumers. ”
Why?
I think it comes down to the idea that government should not limit individual freedom. For example, people should be free to choose whether to board a 737 MAX 8 or give feed babies with bottles containing BPA. In America, consumers are considered to be able to gather enough information to make best decisions for themselves and not be influenced by government regulation, whereas Europeans have been willing to give the government and regulators leeway in limiting what corporations and consumers can do in favor of public health and safety. In Finland, the corner store can’t sell me a beer after 9 pm, but that’s fine with me.
1
@OP "In America, consumers are considered to be able to gather enough information to make best decisions for themselves and not be influenced by government regulation"
Then why have our politicians refused to label GMO foods, enabling consumers to freely choose? This isn't about freedom, it's about a country whose politicians are for sale to the highest bidders.
6
@OP
"In America, consumers are considered to be able to gather enough information to make best decisions for themselves and not be influenced by government regulation,"
And this is a ridiculous concept in practice. Hello, asymmetry of information. How are lay people supposed to evaluate whether a plane is safe and make an informed choice? They can't. It's just not possible.
follow the money. COULD IT BE ANY MORE OBVIOUS? In our brave new world, profits outrank human beings every.single.time. -- instead of every.other.time -- before the enormous transfer of wealth during the last 40 years.
11
The FAA is more interested in protecting the business interest than protecting the public. They can be slow in taking action compared to other countries, is because of the reason you so correctly state:
" Right-wing parties in Europe generally are neither as skeptical of science nor as devoted to business as the Republican Party in the United States can be."
Another reason is high level decision makers are not personally affected by this delay.
One of my Republican friend once told me that what we have here is capitalism, not socialism nor democracy. If you expect otherwise move to some where else.
6
Why? Simple - as a nation we are unwilling to pay the price (taxes) of regulatory oversight. Oversight and authority come at a public cost, which our legislators have been unwilling to levy.
8
Now the Editorial Board is expert on airline safety.
Prior to the shutdown there were about 8500 daily 737max8 flights in the US, with the aircraft in service all of 2018. For the FAA to ground aircraft within its purview with no evidence of serious issues would set a dangerous precedent (see Trump's emergency declaration).
Only after FAA inspectors had visual evidence of flight controls from the Ethiopian site did they order the grounding. This is the way things are supposed to work.
2
There WAS evidence. Two crashes within a relatively short period of time with the same type of plane under similar circumstances. Given that as a starting point, good judgment should have dictated the immediate grounding of these planes until the evidence proved that they are safe or that pilot error was the cause. That is basic risk management.
4
@kwb It should have been obvious after the Lion Air incident that the MCAS system caused the plane to crash itself--the planes should have been grounded then.
Not really! The FAA approved the system that’s in question without proper discussion and without the proper training of the users of the system, namely the PILOTS! Given that they should have known that this is what they did why were they waiting? In our system as evidenced by the Tobacco settlements a generation ago, the regulators are really the regulated and don’t feel the need to protect their true constituents, namely US, from the business interests that regulate them!!
Because, as Bob Dylan said, "Money doesn't talk, it swears."
171
@J. Colby
If were going to quote Dylan how about this line from him that we could use regarding corporate values:
"I used to care, but things have changed".
11
@J. Colby
Money doesn't talk, it SHOUTS.
2
So long as there are U.S. gun manufacturers pumping out weapons that, when used correctly, kill people (and other living things), what can we really say about the "risk" any company is taking when they, too, choose profit over life and limb.
9
Just imagine if CEOs could be held criminally negligent for knowingly putting unsafe products on the market...
Now tell me why they aren't?
19
@James Lee They are not held accountable because they bribe Congress with campaign donations, who in turn write legislation that allows them to not be held responsible. Money always wins in government.
7
@James Lee You'd immediately cripple businesses ability to innovate and release new models of aircraft. Do you honestly think for a second that they didn't undergo rigorous safety tests, both in software and on the field?
@Joseph
"Do you honestly think for a second that they didn't undergo rigorous safety tests, both in software and on the field?"
Rigorous? Please explain why the battery problem did not show up in precertification testing of the 787. It was not unknown that Lithium Ion batteries required special care to avoid flammability.
2
The Europeans didn't show any abundance of caution when allowing their belching diesel cars, which, until American testers discovered the outright criminal software ruse, outsold gasoline-run cars throughout the EU.
2
@globalnomad. One example does not create equivalents
Because the United States is first and foremost the ultimate capitalist society. Its heartbeat is corporate greed. Why do you think so many want to get in here. It’s easy to set up companies with few consequences. Someone should run the statistics. what sectors of society compromise the most criminal activities. Church goers seem to be high on the list of easy prey.
Senior citizens get taken often. Generally with slaps on the wrist for the perpetrators. Internet theft is the latest go to criminal enterprise. Steal a million from a us bank, become a hero in Russia.
3
The U.S. Government is a wholly owned Subsidiary of Corporations and of Rich and Powerful Citizens of the U. S. and many other countries who run the U.S. Government to suit their own self interests. Everyone in the U. S. either knows this and/or buys all the propaganda that keeps the U. S. Government a wholly owned subsidiary.
5
Why? you ask. Easy:
Risk to consumer = more profit.
Caution = less profit
11
RE: "Why Does the U.S. Tolerate So Much Risk?"
Money has value in the US. People do not.
Money has value in the US. Water and air do not.
Money has value in the US. Your land does not, only their land does in as far as they can extract money from it.
What is the difference between cattle and people? Cattle have value. - Marie 1995 (the year I started commuting on public transportation)
1
The greater the risk, the greater the reward. How many times have you heard this?
And the reward is often times MONEY. The U.S. excels at only one thing...making money. Even human life is not valued as high, nor is God.
Therefore, in the endless American struggle between the individual versus the corporation, we know the corporation ALWAYS wins. A prime example of this can be found in the Republican Party. A soulless, corrupt, vile, and shortsighted entity. May greed be its own demise.
4
Ironically, on the other extreme, our legislators bend over backwards to accommodate anti-vaxxers who are so terrified of risk, unsupported by scientific data, that they will put babies and ill people in peril.
3
The comments here reflect the typical cynicism of your readers who seem to feel that everything the US does is bad. How about looking at the different cultures between Europe and the US. Ours is one that is based on; innocent until proven guilty, entrepreneurship, and risk oriented innovation. Europe is more controlling and conservative and safety minded, yet that attitude has produced a stagnant economy, high levels of unrest (yellow vests) and low social mobility and high unemployment.
Your readers can complain all they want and spin conspiracy theories but the day they get their wish and we become a socialist country based on adherence to an ideology and party loyalty versus meritocracy they’ll understand how much better they have it.
1
@Paul
"Europe . . . has produced . . . low social mobility"
I just read in Krugman's column the other day where he refuted that claim with the fact that America has the highest level of inequality and LESS social mobility than Europe as a result.
@Bill M
All of Europe? Every country has better social mobility? C’mon give me a break. Have you ever lived there or worked in the major economies? I have and all of the benefits are reserved for an elite group that went to the right university. In fact you are not allowed to go to university if you do not have the grades at least here you can go to a community college. Krugman is an ideologue who uses selective facts and small scale studies to give a scientific cover to his love for his ideaology. Wake up and question people like Krugman.
Is this a rhetorical question?
It's all about arrogance and money.
That is all.
1
Why does the U.S. tolerate so much risk? That's simple, Greed.
1
It’s all about the Benjamins, baby.
The greatest myth our country has pulled off is that we are a meritocracy and that there is no corruption.
The way to redemption begins with calling a spade a spade. To admit that things are broken. Otherwise, why fix them?
5
Why does the U.S. tolerate so much risk?
Because the US government is basically corporations in disguise.
4
Why Does the US Tolerate So Much Risk? Money, Money, Money.
Politician works for the corporations not for the public, just see our healthcare, and gun laws
3
"...promote the general welfare ", the well-being of Americans, seems to have been erased from the thoughts of the Founders on the function of our government. Were Jefferson, Hamilton et al too socialistic?
1
Because money greases everything in the US, it's how politicians get elected (SuperPAC) and legislate (lobbyists, 'donors', how kids get into university (buy a spot, buy a 'coach', 'donate'), how you get looked after if you're sick (drugs industries run health care, perks for doctors, higher medicine costs than in EU for same drug) and how you decide whether or not to protect the public (cost-benefit, pay off non-disclosure settlements) and your employees (no paid maternity leave, sick leave, etc.). 'Higher threshold' or just no ethics and no responsibility to those who vote for you, pay your wages, apply in good faith for places, work more than one job just to have health insurance?
2
Is there anyone left in the country, even the most die-hard Faux Noise addict who believes that corporate power and wealth do not control our government? Aren't the Tea Partiers even on to this fact?
1
Surely your headline question is rhetorical. You could have written the editorial with one word: Profits.
The U.S. is fast becoming an untrustworthy nation on many levels.
I am heartbroken.
3
You are safer on a US flag airplane than anywhere else in the world. Since 2009 there has been only one death on a US Flag commercial airplane. You are more likely to die driving to the airport. The CDC reports that roughly 800 people die every year falling out of bed so you are safer on a US Flag commercial airplane than you are in your own bed. The question posed by your heading is completely misplaced.
3
If this is some kind of joke, the timing is poor. Everyone knows the answer to the question posed here.
1
Others jumped the gun... There was little downside.
The United States of Corrupt Crony Capitalist Corporate Plutocrat Oligarchy is built on the principle of arrogance, diva narcissism, hubris, pride and the loving worship of money. At best human health and safety are at best secondary concerns if not total indifference.
1
It is a constant balancing act. Just look at the absurdity in California were thousands of products are labelled as potentially cancer causing including coffee. Labelling everything is the same as labeling nothing. And while you may use BPA as an example of more aggressive EU action there is still no solid evidence of it being dangerous. Given everything I buy has a warning label and the first half of every product user manual is moronic warnings obviously written by lawyers to hold other lawyers at bay it is hard to imagine we are tolerating too much risk.
1
Why Does the U.S. Tolerate So Much Risk?
Because the country’s greatest god, mammon, needs sated, constantly. There will never be enough riches to satisfy its needs.
1
A possible reason the US might allow the Boeing plane to fly ... more hours flying the plane in the US without anomalous behavior reported. On the other hand, apparently anomalous behavior had been reported by pilots but no corrective action had been taken. If that is the case, Boeing should get really slammed hard. Combine that with the trash being so bad that the Air Force would not accept new tankers, one has to wonder what has happened to management of the Lazy B.
We are a country based on money.
"Why does the US tolerate so much risk?" Because money, corporations, greed are what drives the country over people.
1
When you turn a country into a business, these things happen.
1
Why does the US tolerate so much risk?
Because the Times thoughtlessly frames issues in neo University of Chicago terms rather than think.
Risk?
Tolerate?
Where is the devotional to God Becker? Mr. Rational Risk all is equal closet nihilism?
Right and wrong covers it. Nothing else does.
Yet another example of our immature culture's exaltation of money over everything else. Pathetic. Don't the people at these corporations that pose public health risks have families? Oh, that's right, internalize the profits, externalize the costs and harm.
1
To quote one of our newest Congress members, "It's all about the Benjamins, baby."
2
Um, because politicians are easily bought?
1
We have two major political parties in this country. The GOP essentially almost always takes the side of those with more power and often wealth against those with less. This can be seen in its fervent support of big business, fossil fuel extractors, military contractors, healthcare profiteers, even the Israeli lobby - which is notable in it's not a natural fit given that about 70% of American Jews are Democrats.
Our other party, the forever-bumbling Democratic Party, sorta kinda takes the side of those with less power, sometimes, until it gets politically difficult, which is essentially when it bumps up against someone more powerful too much. Then all bets are off.
I don't have to tell you which party has been tremendously more successful the past 35+ years.
1
@O My there’s only one party in America- the Republicrats.
The editorial asks "Why Does the U.S. Tolerate So Much Risk?".
The answer is simple, it is because the corporations fund the politicians.
3
@pulsation Bingo. It's just as simple as that.
All about the Benjamins!
2
Freedom ! But Tort Reform. Mandatory Arbitration in secret. Amazingly there exist expedited systems to obtain Judgements against people, not to mention credit agencies and other blacklists. I guess the free market will now kill the Max 3 or at least make it a cheap flight with a waiver. Who needs regulation or government ?
1
"In the last decade, most of the big U.S. airlines have shifted major maintenance work to places like El Salvador, Mexico, and China, where few mechanics are F.A.A. certified and inspections have no teeth."
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/airplane-maintenance-disturbing-truth
113
@rtj I'm betting it saves money not to have to pay to train foreign workers to pass US FAA tests to work on US Airlines planes in foreign countries.
And who knows if FAA standards are any better than what the countries in question already have in place for their own airlines.
Besides, for companies, risk is a win-win, the paltry fines meted out, the slap on the wrist (no jail time) makes it a sure fire bet for them (not so much for the people whose lives they ante up as if they were chips in a poker game). This type of negligent, egregious behavior is systemic in the USA and this administration is opening the door to much more of it.
27
@angel98
" I'm betting it saves money not to have to pay to train foreign workers to pass US FAA tests to work on US Airlines planes in foreign countries. "
Of course it does. Not just avoiding training but the money saved on wages between the countries.
I remember reading this article a few years ago, it scared the pants off of me.
"The work is labor-intensive and complicated, and the technical manuals are written in English, the language of international aviation. According to regulations, in order to receive F.A.A. certification as a mechanic, a worker needs to be able to “read, speak, write, and comprehend spoken English.” Most of the mechanics in El Salvador and some other developing countries who take apart the big jets and then put them back together are unable to meet this standard."
Now what i want to know is which trade agreement, authorized by which politicians, allowed this to happen.
29
@rtj
There is nothing to say that F.A.A. certification is the gold standard (and much to say that it may not be), or better than the standards other countries already have in place.
btw: People/companies in foreign countries have manuals translated professionally so they can use and maintain products that come from countries who only supply manuals in their own language. It's big business in every field imaginable.
Faulty software is seemingly more of a problem these days, and more frightening to me than mechanics who haven't passed the FAA test or do not speak English.
10
When companies cozy up to regulators, we ALL LOSE. Science based regulation keeps us safe, healthy, and keeps our water and air clean. WE NEED A RALPH NADER FOR THIS GENERATION!!!
2
@As-I-Seeit read Ralph’s latest blog entry. He is of this generation, he’s generationless.
Corporations hold national politicians in their deep corporate pockets, thanks to a lack of effective campaign finance laws in the US.
I’d appreciate some serious campaign finance reform, please. How about Congress overturning the disastrous Citizens United decision by the US Supreme Court? That would be most appreciated.
3
Big business has purchased all the power bases in this " great land " anything they say or do is sanitized by the current party in control of the media.
Please start paying attention before it's too late.
Your progeny are counting on you.
American business executives are plenty aware of risk, risk to corporate profits or to themselves as individuals. But basically they could care less about risk to faceless consumers or the environment ... so long as they and their profits are safe.
This is why government regulation is needed. Business WILL NOT regulate itself.
How many bankers and traders went to prison for the 2008 meltdown?
3
Why does the U.S. tolerate so much risk? Because America's highest values are innovation and maximizing profits.
6
If Boeing were not a retirement community for x FAA inspectors they would have never on a bet approved the 737 Max because it's inherently unstable, trying to crash.
Boeing-FAA Inc. tried to avoid it's tendency to snap roll into the ground with an add on computer to save a dollar.
Not so simple to prevent a plane that wants to crash from itself.
3
Wait, your blaming retired FAA inspectors for Boeing’s corporate prioritization of profits over safety? That doesn’t seem right to me. Apples and oranges.
Profit motive, and Republicanization in which the idea that the only function of government is to ensure public monies finds its way to private sector, Corporate profit margins. Anything that actually provides a service to the taxpayer is demonized as Socialism, and God forbid multinational Corporations cannot engage in predatory activities; exploit cheap labor, consumers, and weak environmental laws. Corporate Plutocracy is the default, and the Republicans have pretty much reached a crescendo in the Trump administration where raw, lock-step power in the service of raw, self-serving greed is the only objective.
30
@Ghost Dansing There is no such thing as public money other than by taxation. Corporate profits are not a transfer of public money to companies. Profits come from voluntary transactions between businesses and consumers in which a product or service of value is exchanged for money.
@John yes, in a dreamland where there are no needs, no monopolies, no poor people who cannot afford this and that etc., all of this would be true. In actual reality, it is not.
4
@John Except for tax cuts, tax breaks and tax incentives.
4
"....increasingly skeptical American policymakers have called for higher levels of scientific certainty before imposing additional regulatory controls on business,”
And then they spend all of their time denigrating the science that raises questions about their products and buying their own scientists to both do the same and claim the products are safe. Their paid-for politicians do the same in Washington and in the states.
If wealthy businesses and business people were not themselves placed in jeopardy by the continued use of these places, do you really think the Trump administration would have grounded them?
15
@Christine
TYPO: "use of these planes" rather than "places" of course.
When there is extreme capitalism that promotes avoiding quarterly earnings being affected at any cost over the health and safety of consumers, then you have this high threshold situation.
What we need is conscious capitalism!
11
We prioritized the profit motive, which is uninterested in the safety of the consumer, the land, and the democracy, unless it leads directly to fewer sales. We sold our elections to the highest bidder. That lead quickly to a government that allows industries to police themselves (look up REGULATORY CAPTURE) and to write their own laws (look up ALEC).
We were warned about the military industrial complex, but I don't know if they imagined the permanent wars we have now. The world is run for profit. We could be building a world that houses and feeds us all. But profit has been declared the absolute top priority of public corporations.
15
@Amy
'American presidential material has been bought over ten times' --- Gore Vidal
"Why does the U.S. tolerate so much risk?"
I hope this is rhetoric, because the answer is obvious.
It's because those taking the risks have a lot of money. And that money allows them to buy off those in Congress who have the duty and power to stop them, but who don't, because they're corrupt.
The vast majority of them belonging to a party that consistently puts profits above ethics and equality.
Pretty simple really.
43
It would be more true to say that those pushing the risks onto the general population have a lot of money. As a result they have more options for avoiding the risks that they push onto the rest of us in order to further enrich themselves.
13
Could it be because they have so much influence on our politicians/regulators?
10
We often think of regulation as bad for business but, as an investor, I feel it is GOOD for business! Why? Because it creates a level playing field that all businesses can work on. That would be fair and science based regulation. Not regulation that favors fossil fuel over better energy options or toxic chemicals over a clean and healthy environment.
Now, imagine a world with no regulation at all. What a mess it would be. We need regulation for business practices in our democracy, for our health, the planet, and a true “conservative” and "progressive” value system.
12
"Why Does the U.S. Tolerate So Much Risk?" Easy: it's bred in the bone. We want to maximize shareholder value and get rid of regulatory constraints.
7
And transfer any costs ($, debt, degradation of environment, public health & safety) onto the public sector to deal with.....Unfettered capitalism is not serving the nation well.
2
You say US regulators require evidence to constrain business activities. We have evidence for man-made climate change. How much more evidence do we need? Lack of evidence is not the only factor leading to lax regulation.
8
@Dorian Climate change is a consumer driven issue more so than a business driven issue.
@John Only because the government, in thrall to profit driven corporations and the rich who run them, refuses to engage in regulated capitalism to prevent the corporations from creating, or in this case adding, to the problem. It should be a government driven issue since so many of the consumers, i.e. citizens, want regulations to help mitigate climate change.
The opioid epidemic: brought to us by Big Pharma. The obesity epidemic, and increase in diabetes and other related illnesses: brought to us by ADM and high fructose corn syrup, plus sugar industry. Climate change: brought to us by fossil fuel companies. Now Boeing and the MAX. Individual human beings suffer the consequences of these risks taken by US companies every time.
20
@jkk..."The opioid epidemic: brought to us by Big Pharma."....Big Pharma did not write a single prescription for pain killers.
@W.A. Spitzer
But Big Pharma flooded small rural towns in the U.S. with millions of pain killers as they imcentivised MDs to dispense the drugs. Perfect storm.
The European nations don't have Republicans, who don't believe in science and don't believe in regulating anything except women's bodies. For Republicans, there is no evidence that smoking causes cancer, that climate change is mostly man made, that Roundup and other chemicals are dangerous to human health, etc. The list goes on and on
44
Good. Let's keep pointing out the US is unique among Western countries in not protecting its citizens against corporate profits. The answer to "why?" is evident: the influence of corporate money in our government. This priority is established by law (notably the Supreme Court decision that corporations are people with first Amendment rights), by putting industry representatives in the Cabinet (yes, even Obama did that), the revolving door between Congress and industry, putting corporate representatives in regulatory agencies (e.g. EPA) and suppressing regulatory efforts (e.g. Consumer Protection Agency). As a primary care doc, I see patients whose lives are sickened and cut short by industries (tobacco, Big Pharma's profits from raising prices on life saving drugs (insulin) and keeping prices for life threatening drugs (opioids) affordable. The list is endless and bottomless (wait for Big Marijuana).
Elizabeth Warren is the one 2020 candidate who has consistently taken aim at one industry; the banking industry is a poster child for how industry cheats the poor and widens our economic divide. For her actions to even the playing field, she's called Pocahontas. A more appropriate folk hero name would be Robin Hood. Better yet, let's call her President.
38
@citizen vox,
Hmmm, Ms. Warren's Wiki says she flipped in '95.
I could continue to look farther back for Sanders video/transcripts but... I'll stick to my original statement.
1
@Dobbys sock
No, it says she opposed the 1995 bankruptcy law that restricted access to bankruptcy for individuals, making it harder for ordinary people to seek bankruptcy protection.
Is that what you meant by "flipped"? Because it doesn't sound like it.
2
Several comments:
first, capitalism and our country work best with a certain level of regulations: too many and the businesses get bogged down but too few and businesses are much more likely to lose business when their products cause harm or have major news articles about them. I will also say that too few will create a very chaotic system for companies and products and our overall economy will take a permanent hit.
When there are problems, like with the planes or food stuffs, or makeup recall, the system of competition should take care of the issue at some point (hopefully quickly). Bad actor companies will fall by the wayside if they can't have good products/services almost all the time.
Right now in our country we have a system of protectionism of companies and this is stopping innovation and other normal pieces of a healthy capitalist system. i.e.climate change should be one of the biggest drivers of innovation that can help US companies lead the world, but alas, not under this adminstration.
5
"Data-driven" often just means "quantifiable" or "based on numbers," and when you're talking about corporations and commerce, those numbers often have dollar signs in front of them.
Morality is not "data-driven." Balancing the needs of the many with the few or the one (to use a favorite Star Trek trope) can't be decided merely by "data" or counting heads.
The same difference between instinctive or cultivated human values and "data-driven" decisions (manipulated to enhance the wealth of those who already have it) exists in how the US and EU view the social safety net and the state's responsibility in promoting "the general welfare"--even though that phrase appears in the US Constitution.
7
@C Wolfe
I agree with this comment and with the editorial. Though not necessarily interesting, quantification of risk is the gold standard. Events are more than frequency, the event also has the magnitude of its effect. Loss of life should be the upper limit of quantification so that when it happens there is an automatic stop. The decision to proceed should require an active decision. Our system allows other values such as profit, disputed causation or political ideology to delay the decision to pause. Loss of crew should cause an inviolable stop.
The “Merchants of Doubt™” are very effective at what they do in collusion with the corruption of Congress, regulatory bodies, and apparently now with our education. $$$$ talk - everything else is negotiable.
Yes, some people will die; sometimes many as in this latest crash. But that's price we need to pay to insure that large corporations can make as much profit as possible. Removing crippling regulations by the Trump administration may cause more pollution in our water and air and add more risk with oil spills, but it really had no choice. The growth of companies far outweighs the heath and wellbeing of the 98%.
22
In a democracy government is formed to meet the needs of the people. In fact, this fundamental principle is enshrined in the preamble to our constitution, "to provide for the general welfare."
In a corporatocracy society is organized to support the profits of large corporations and their exorbitantly paid CEO's. And that's what we have become.
Trump has basically put the entire government to the service of corporate America. In every instance where there is a regulation designed to protect health or safety he has rolled it back or staled its implementation.
Maybe to get congress to act we have to actually show up in their office with the broken bodies, desperate illnesses and severe injuries.
It shouldn't require this, but just the other day Trump rolled back a regulation designed to protect us from asbestos. The disease caused by asbestos, mesothelioma is usually fatal. Yet because it's cheap the builders lobby got Trump to roll back the rules and so about 2,000 people will die this year alone.
This would be a perfect issue for the Democrats but they haven't been much better. They'll give the people half a loaf where the GOP will give none.
Bernie Sanders and of course Ralph Nader seem to be the only one that understand what's going on. Can't wait for 2020.
10
@Drspock Actually, the phrase -- from the preamble to the Constitution, which does not have the force of law -- is to "...promote the general welfare...", not to "provide for" it. The difference is significant. And according to the Declaration of Independence -- the statement of principle upon which the country, if not the government, was founded -- the primary purpose of government is "...to secure these rights..." to "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
That is why America is more risk tolerant than other countries and societies in the world: because to guarantee security, you must always sacrifice some amount of liberty; and in assessing that sacrifice, Americans have traditionally factored liberty higher in the equation than have most other peoples.
We do many things to make the lives of children as safe as we can. Most of those things involve severely restricting what they may and may not do, what they may and may not see, who they may and may not interact with, and, often, what they may and may not think. Children may be safe, but in almost every way they are completely unfree.
That may be appropriate for children. It is wholly inappropriate for adults and is not they way most adults would choose to live.
"Reasonable" regulation may be good and necessary. But there is honest and heartfelt disagreement about what is and is not "reasonable" that has less to do with "greed" or "capitalism" than with a basic desire for liberty and autonomy.
No mystery this. In the wealthiest country, the wealthy rule according to the Almighty Dollar. In innumerable ways it has become okay to make a living killing people. We are tolerating endless war on other countries — little helpless ones — and I feel certain it's because it's profitable for the military-industrial complex. European countries have a much better record of taking care of their citizens' quality of life than in the U.S. and Canada. If your house sits on an unstable slope prone to landslides, a logging company has the right to log off the trees above your house — or in your watershed where it will impact your drinking water. Scientists warn that mass death of bees threatens the future of human food, but our countries are the last to ban the chemicals that kill them. The US and Canada are major examples of the growing impunity and imperviousness of corporate wealth to do whatever "benefits the economy". And so millions around the world have already died from climate change, and we face a world catastrophe, but our corporate slave societies,don't blink an eye. The profits of a corporation are like God, and life itself has become cheap, disposable, like the "collateral damage" of our wars. It's a growing societal psychopathy.
9
The short answer is that this has been imposed on us.
The US used to have a well regulated economy in which risk was actually manged by human beings who were personally responsible for the results managing it and not by magical rhetoric about "markets".
Then the republicans gave us deregulation.
For any of you who do not yet get it. Economies with lots of corruption and little regulation are more lucrative. They are also more dangerous and have more industrial deaths and accidents as well as knock on social problems caused by industry and corruption in society like poor government, unreliable elections, corrupt justices which eventually lead to entirely corrupt justice systems......
46
@magicisnotreal Tons of government regulation can also be a sign of a corrupt government. Regulation is often written under processes that give unfair advantages to large corporations.
2
@John
By "under processes that give unfair advantages to large corporations" you mean they are written by lobbyists for the industries being regulated. Therefore, the regulations are either toothless or non-existent.
2
The risks we are taking are greater than it appears. PFOA and replacement PFAs are yet another example where the US, as usual, has not followed the precautionary principle. The large scale production and widespread use of new molecules in industrial and consumer products, without adequate testing, has caused repeated episodes of toxic contamination that affect all citizens. DDT turned out to be a reproductive toxin for birds, but, luckily, not for mammals and in particular not for humans. However, given how the US does business and fails to regulate toxins, until long after they are produced and distributed so as to poison everyone, our luck will run out.
3
I think this editorial argues from emotion, not science.
I don't disagree with a key point in the editorial, that the USA tends to favor commercial interests over science and safety. I was appalled, horrified, and disgusted to read that the Trump administration wanted to cut funding and staffing for the FAA's Aviation Safety Office...but I was not surprised. That's just part of what makes this administration so loathsome.
But another way we in the USA ignore science is that we go nuts over whatever headline-worthy tragedy is in today's news, no matter how improbable, and we want to prevent it from EVER happening again. That's laudable, but the attention we devote there is attention that we don't give to other problems. The effects of childhood poverty, for example. Or smoking. How on earth have we not done a simple thing to phase out tobacco entirely? Raise the smoking age by one year every year.
Consider driverless cars. They will cause some deaths, but that is not the relevant metric. What's relevant is whether they will prevent more deaths than they cause.
(I'm old enough to remember that car-makers resisted regulations to put seat belts in all cars.)
A reasonable case can be made to ground and not to ground. I don't know enough about the 737 Max 8, and I don't know if there are options other than ground or don't ground. What I care about is that those we trust to make those decisions are making them rationally and without political or commercial interference.
3
Why? Because corporations have bought our government and they're greedy as can be. There's little to no integrity in government or corporations.
24
The quick answer is that the US is not a government but a corporation. Rules, regulations and oversight parameters are drawn up by Congress to protect their main constituents/campaign contributors, the corporations. It really doesn't matter what party is in control of Congress, there are very few politicians like Bernie Sanders or Beto O'Rourke who do not take large campaign sums from Corporate PAC's, corporations and Wall Street Banks. The risk is in part or all shifted to the consumer.
20
@Steve
Today's Guardian has a nice report on Beto. He has a record of voting in favor of the gas and oil industry and with Republicans even though he was in a safe Democratic district. He pledged not to take money from corporate PACs but did so anyway. His record bears looking in to.
1
"... the total value of fines imposed on commercial airlines by the F.A.A. in 2018 was 88 percent lower than the total value of fines in 2016. The White House last year proposed to reduce funding and staffing for the F.A.A.’s Aviation Safety Office."
Why was it Trump who made the announcement of the grounding in US jurisdiction of this plane? Why was the decision passed up from the FAA through the Department of Transportation? How much delay did that incur? Was Trump's personal political desire to play the competent father figure to his base a factor?
I suspect so, but others may disagree
Those who do disagree may wish to ponder the price of the dependent loyalty in public decision-making that Trump is widely recognized to demand from the persons he selects/appoints to his Administration. In this Boeing case, the price may well soon be paid by Americans in (a) further loss of the US's reputation for honesty and competence and (b) impending losses in the scale and viabiity of employment and profitability in its aircraft-related industries.
3
Follow the money. Clearly there is a cost to providing the software programs that control the planes. And a cost to testing the planes after the software installation, and a cost to thoroughly training the pilots and the support staff/mechanics etc.
But those costs should never outweigh flight safety. Even if the stockholders dividends are not as large as they think they should be, or Boeing stock as high in price as stockholders think it should be. People's lives are beyond price.
4
It’s not a question of tolerance. It’s about ignorance and blind thrust in corporations from the consumers side.
Banks, pharmaceutical companies, insurance, automakers, food industry, you name it, care about their profits. Squeezing the consumer’s wallet as long as possible is eventually the priority. The classic “We Want Your Happiness” is only in their advertisements.
5
K Street controls Congress which the news media ignores entirely as an important public issue...for obvious reasons.
If we abolished all lobbyists or curtailed lobbying severely by law, I am sure life for the average American would improve dramatically in terms of health, safety and welfare.
13
@JAB
Lobbying is/was an essential function of good governance, which allows/allowed representatives of the governed to inform the legislators of effects (as, unintended consequences) of intended, or current laws.
Until the SCOTUS decided "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" (January 2010), it was (sometimes) possible for our Congressional legislators to make laws which might work for the common interest.
What has changed over the ensuing decade, is that the legislators -- primarily the Representatives in the U.S. House -- have been transformed into full-time lobbyists. Previously the members of the House were, by Constitutional design, representing 'smaller', popular, local interests, while the Senators represented 'larger', vested, moneyed interests.
The issue is not that lobbyists are undesirable, rather that they were a potent force before Citizens United, and are now Trojan warriors foisting irresponsible instability, and confounding good governance by severely degrading the quality of the U.S. House of representatives!.
What an easy question! US doesn’t hear anything except profit, as long as there is money to be made we will delay doing anything.
7
Because the bottom line in this country is that money matters more than the health, safety and well being of others.
42
@Fromjersey
Not "in this country" but rather "the bottom line for republican politicians is that money they get some of is all that matters to them."
3
Our political system is for sale to the highest bidder. Until we get the money out of politics things will never change.
57
It is really simple the largest US corporations control a large part of Congress and work hard to influence the media. There were representatives the day after on CNBC saying that Boeing did not see a problem and that the planes had many tests and we were all safe. It is known as lobbying.
18
Because Europe and the U.K. are still democracies in the sense that their representatives are answerable to ordinary people. The U.S. Congress is elected by ordinary people, but it votes with the donor class 90% of the time, maybe more (see many graphs on this subject.) This may change if there can ever be campaign finance laws not struck down by the Supreme Court. In addition, ordinary people must have a mechanism for power to balance corporate power, like unions.
75
@DB
They WILL be struck down by the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court is no longer a politically neutral body. It's an arm of the Republican Party. No one represents everyday citizens anymore.
18
The question isn’t why are Americans so risk tolerant but how can public wellbeing get an upper hand on corporate priorities in political power.
8
We're supposed to be the home of the brave though I guess that means a few of us, at least, are brave while most of us seek zero risk. Europeans are much more brave when it comes to smoking.
1
Is that really true? I thought they had similar laws to us.
1
@Rich Murphy Similar laws now, at least in western Europe, but still higher rates of smoking and very high rates in eastern Europe. But Italians, Germans, Spanish, Swiss all smoke a lot more than Americans.
But for some reason the opposite is true for new medications which are prohibitively expensive to bring to market in the US because of FDA regulation. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just that it is.
1
The title of your article is a question. The answer is self-evident: follow the money.
American corporations and ultra-rich people use their donations to influence or outright control almost all American politicians to a large extent, especially after the egregious Citizens United ruling opened the floodgates to unfettered giving by corporate "individuals." Add to that influence the unfathomable amount of continuous corporate lobbying of every politician about every single law, rule, regulation or policy that might constrain corporate profits or freedom. Those politicians, in turn, appoint the top officials of the government agencies who are supposed to protect Americans, and the politicians pick people who will do what they and their handlers want. In the most egregious cases, such as the current administration, they pick people specifically and openly dedicated to sabotaging the very mission of the department or agency they lead. Add in conflicts of interest among these appointees themselves and the stage is set. Put all these puppeteers in motion for 10 or 20 or 50 years, and you have the reason why the American government is so willing to risk the lives and safety and health of Americans. The answer: because the rich people running the corporations make more money that way.
You keep mentioning the EU governments. I don't know much about them, but I can only conclude that corporate money corrupts their system somewhat less.
17
Why does US have a higher threshold than other developed nations for allowing corporations to risk the health and safety of consumers? Very simple: The government of the United States is a wholly-owned subsidiary of those corporations.
Other developed nations have elections with limited campaigns lasting a few weeks. Campaigns in the US are effectively continuous, and cost millions of dollars. Candidates must convince wealthy donors they will provide the best return on investment. Once elected, they must immediately start raising money for their re-election. Their other priority is delivering the promised return on donor investment.
Corporate donors believe they are accountable only to shareholders, Everyone else is expendable. What they most desire from elected officials they've funded is the absence of "burdensome regulation" that interferes with providing maximum (short-term) gain for shareholders. The mantra is "deregulation," letting industries regulate themselves. But when disaster happens, government must protect shareholders: "privatize profit, socialize risk."
One of our parties has made enriching its wealthy donors its sole agenda. But the other party owes too much to its own donors to offer much opposition. Eliminating the corrosive influence of Big Money in our political system would solve many of America's problems. In particular, it would provide the necessary regulation to protect consumers (and the economy) from the harm resulting from corporate greed.
34
@Ted
Very well said. Wholeheartedly agree. Particularly when talking about Big Moneys' influence on the Democratic Party. It's not enough to just be the lesser of two evils, the wealthy and the corporations simply have too much power. Lord Acton's statement, "All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely", is as true today as it was when he first advanced it. We must assert ourselves as American citizens, so that our ultimate, and sole means of participation in sharing power, is the ballot box. The election of 2018 was the most important election of my life, and I've been voting since the late 60's. November 3, 2020, is the next one.
2
The basis for tolerance of the vast amount of risk is very simple: Ignorance of the risk. It's not tolerance at all.
For "known risks", we have an entire capitalist system which enables the risk creators to either hide or obfuscate the risk. Furthermore, the First Amendment permits outright lying to state that the risks are nonexistent.
It is only when Nature starts speaking in clear and unambiguous terms, do we get the message.
That said, there is one more factor this is endemic to who we are...
We, as a species, are descended from prey species, not predator species. You would think that would cause to have been evolved as cautious, but, not so. We are evolved to react to the threat of the moment usually the nearby predator. Abstraction, which is necessary for planning such as preventing risks, evolved later especially as our brains got larger.
This is critical because, in the business world, what vendors worry about is the immediacy of the bottom line; their ability to make money and survive as a going concern. If they are honest about their risks and downsides of using their products, then they get less sales which actually then threatens their existence; long-term or abstract risks are other people's problems.
Passing the buck: an evolved part of the human genus for over 2,000,000 years.
1
@VJR "It is only when Nature starts speaking in clear and unambiguous terms, do we get the message."
Uh huh. I 'm still waiting for that to happen. I thought it had, but apparently not since no serious steps have been taken to curtail climate change for the decades we have known about it.
The easy (and true) answer is that our government is beholden to corporate greed.
But the scarier answer is that today, we give equal credence to facts and alternative facts. If person A says research shows that X causes cancer, and person B (without proof) disagrees, often both points of view are treated with equal seriousness in public discourse.
118
Well, Occam's Razor should tell us that we just don't matter. We are disposable commodities in a dehumanized economy.
10
"The United States has a higher threshold than other developed nations for allowing corporations to risk the health and safety of consumers." Why? MONEY. Were you honestly thinking there was another explanation?
231
"Why does the U.S. tolerate so much risk?"
Risk, by definition, is not certainty of harm but some some probability of harm greater than zero. At what probability action should be taken is one way to assess risk aversion. The greater the probability of harm needed to cause action, the less risk averse a person/country is.
The US does tend to be less risk averse than most other countries. At the root level, this is a product of our history and of our culture. Immigrants to the US accepted the risk of moving to a new country; settling the West was risky; Culturally we espouse a more pure form of capitalism than is found in most other countries and aspire to more individualism than most other countries. In other words, being less risk averse is part of our American heritage.
Additionally, one must ask whether the close ties between business and government distort perceptions of risk. We appear to require a higher degree of proof that a harm exists than is the case in many other countries. Part of this is explained by heritage and culture; part of this appears related to the unsettled debate within society regarding individual responsibility versus societal good. Countries that place greater emphasis on societal good appear to be less risk averse than the U.S.
The bottom line is that there is no single explanation for the extent of less risk aversion in the US; it is a confluence of numerous factors.
8
@Dave The bottom line is greed pure and simple.
1
@Dave
Thank you. Very good analysis. Corporate greed is in great part a product of our history and culture, not the cause of it.
1
Hm? Are you referring to the United States of America or the United States of Corporations? The former was created by the people for the people, the latter is created by some of the people for nonliving entities. The first has a moral and ethical compass and responsibility its fellow citizens while the other is faceless and has allegiance to only itself.
94
@HXB Well said! Yes, I thought I was born into the USA in 1973. But now I see that I live in a foreign country, aptly named the USC. I still have cognitive dissonance when I remember how I envisioned the future of our nation as a young person, and how I look out our nation's future now. I am seriously considering leaving the country in 5-10 years if the USC persists.
5
@HXB
"while the other is faceless and has allegiance to only itself."
That same faceless entity gave us Trump. He is all of the negative aspects of capitalism rolled in to one alleged human being. Both gobble up value and leave in their wake only detritus.
1
Campaign finance reform and term limits would do a lot to stop this.
As a Florida resident, I call that newly elected Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida ran on a platform of cleaning up D.C., and made term limits a central part of that argument. Anybody heard anything from him on that subject lately?
Don't bother answering.
71
The FAA has a dual role to promote commercial aviation and, to set the standards for safety. The fundamental problems is that the fox is guarding the chicken house. The FAA establishes the rules as to what constitutes "safe," rather than an independent body that doesn't have a vested interest. While the FAA administrator can stand up and say that "the system is safe," that is merely because the FAA defines what it means to be safe. The NTSB and Airline Pilots Association often have differing views, but have no authority to implement changes. Change is needed.
21
I am a Los Angeles born American living in Europe for almost 20 years. Why does the US risk so much when it comes to the safety of its people? Maybe its because I am on the outside looking in, but the answer seems very clear, it's the overwhelming greed of corporate America and the people that run those companies that put profits over the well being of their customers, the American people. Money and power over rides all in the USA right now, saddly most of the population has been convinced to think otherwise. Where I live regulatory laws make sure ordinary people get a safe and fair society to live in, the American Oligarchs would call that "evil socialism" that takes away personal freedom. Most people in the EU, myself included, would call that the foundation of a fair, just and safe place to live.
576
@George Gottl...well put. You experienced both. My question is why don't other advanced democracies, also capitalist, let themselves be so directed by corporate greed and priorities of profits over public good?
We can understand to some extent the greed, exploitation and corruption that's gotten almost normalized in US politics---esp since the S. Court's Citizens United decision that says that limits on donor money is anti 1st Amendment.
Why don't courts in other democracies make similar decisions and release their corporate billions into politics? Or would they call that absurd?
Why don't their rw parties abroad try to dismantle their HC for all? And make their universities into profit centers? This contrast is what we need explained. And what our media avoids.
15
@George Gottl
The rest of the world piggybacks on USA development -- were it not for natural resources (gas) the country you live in would not provide the standard of living it does. What has it developed in the past 100 years?
It's a great place .. spent a lot of time there years ago. Not knocking it -- but, it needs the rest of the world to provide it's developed goods.
Canada was able to use satellite data to come to a decision. Britain canceled flights because it did not know why the planes were crashing. FAA was dithering. US is not more risk tolerant or brave. The planes kept flying because the companies are greedy for revenue and profits.
95
Why does the US tolerate so much risk? Because the only thing that matters to US corporations, who have purchased Congress, is to make more and more money. From the FDA, Big Ag, Big Medicine, Big Pharma, nothing matters but the bottom line.
339
“Those in public office have a duty not to wait until their worst fears are realized,” While this may be understood in other parts of the world, it is not true here. With all the pro-business, deregulatory zeal of corporate congressional enablers, in the U. S. we must wait until it becomes obvious that the health and safety of the citizens is endangered and must necessarily take precedence over corporate profits. And if you look at the examples of tobacco or the Flint water crisis, for instance, not even then.
57
It not the public that accepts the risk it's the government, which is on the payroll of said corporations. There is 15 trillion dollars worth of private GDP trying to buy 500 odd representatives in Congress - it's not even close to a contest and we have to die for it.
155
An excess of Individualism. Americans, by the very nature of our culture, just don't care about things like environmental or industrial disasters unless we are directly affected by them.
American culture tells us to "pull ourselves up by our bootstraps" and that "rugged individualism" is the most valuable social trait one can possess. These attributes are complete antithetical to caring about how people other than yourself are impacted by a company dumping waste into their drinking water, or a tornado ripping the roof off their homes.
We value nothing more than money, and we value no greater method of acquiring money than exploiting those who are weaker than we are.
88
Although, to be fair, China was quick to ground the planes and it has no effective consumer regulation for health or safety. In this one instance, it's pretty clear that an American company would bear most of the cost and therefore America was the most hesitant. Who was correctly evaluating the risk is a question.
3
Might greed have something to do with the amount of risk imposed on the American people because corporations and special interests have a stranglehold on Congress? Congress can and should pass laws that effectively protect its citizens. We have a bought and paid for government. Isn’t that obvious?
166
Opioid epidemic is another example. Pharma blaming doctors for not treating pain, pushing for pain to be a “vital sign” and for prescribing and now blaming doctors for overprescribing.
27
American companies accept more risk than others because more and more the profits have become most important. Regulations being cut back allow companies to reap more income and increase profits to the detriment of us all. Morality and ethics emphasized less and less. From the view of a child of "the greatest generation" this is very sad to see.
105
Interesting thesis but selective too. What are we to make of the fact that, in the US, the flying public has to doff its shoes in order to get through security? Is that an example of too-permissive risk tolerance?
5
@Steve...Not to mention the care and safety at out national Parks. My sister worked for a time as a ranger at Yellowstone. When she had to pull some back behind behind the safety signs at the geysers or stop someone from taking pictures with the buffalo they were almost invariably Europeans. The Germans in particular are notorious for disobeying safety signs and rules.
The usual answer: Money. The new head of the EPA, a corporate lawyer who fought against EPA regulations, has decided - against all common sense - that EPA will no longer consider the cost of adverse health effects of pollution (to humans or wildlife) when considering how "cost effective" pollution control regulations are. In other words, the polluters have won and will now be able to pollute ad nauseum (literally!) because the actual medical costs to the public will not be considered.
It is the same with all industries - the bean counters figure out how much it costs to fix a problem vs paying out settlements for those injured. Which ever is cheaper wins. The fact people continue to be injured or killed is considered as just a cost of doing business. No concern whatsoever about the people themselves. And with the Supreme Court dominated by ultra right wing corporate apologists, this will get worse, not better.
397
@Joe Rockbottom. Yes, but the party that elevates money above human health is also the party of 'life,' at least until birth.
20
@Ockham9
I think better than 'life until birth' is 'life until life'.
These liars fetishize the idea of life until it actually exists, until it begins to make demands and show promise.
Then they become, just as plainly, the party of death. Misery and death for all those who do not meekly conform.
There is nothing of life, or life affirming, about them.
7
This editorial says, "European nations initially lagged behind the United States in protecting the health and safety of their citizens, which created a popular backlash that gained strength after a series of disasters, including the meltdown at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in 1986."
What it's referring to is the U.S. policy that is now bringing us global warming. There are risks, and then there are risks.
1
It is not at all clear that the "regulators accepted the wisdom of a little more caution."
It seems ar more likely that they simply responded to political pressure, for once in the right direction.
So rather than complacently assuming they have gained insight or wisdom, I believe we should conclude that their decisions are driven only by political and economic pressure, and do not have anything to do with actual risk assessment.
42
Simple. It is the worship of mammon. Valuing money and wealth more than life has unfortunately become one of our distinguishing characteristics. It is odd to me that a nation that is primarily Christian would lean this way. Maybe this speaks to how 'deeply' we believe and practice our faiths.
44
@Dennis W, it will not seem odd to you when you insert "hypocrites" after Christans.
From Bakker and Falwell, to Sarah Huckabee, to the legions of tRump's uneducated base, they are a "do as I say, not as I do" bunch.
Were the son of the sky fairy to return today, he'd clean house, just as he did with the money changers from the temple.
3