🚀 go-pugleaf

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message 
news:T%Zbg.46$ho5.6247@news20.bellglobal.com...

>> >> It does mean superior.  If you think otherwise I congratulate you on
> your
>> >> unlimited wealth.
>> >
>> > Are you advocating the idea that we should use a substance known to
> cause
>> > more deaths than another slightly more expensive substance simply
> because
>> > the first one is cheaper?
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>
> This kind of loses you the high ground in the DDT debate, since you 
> admitted
> above that you'd advocate using asbestos even though it kills more people
> than another material simply because it's cheaper.


Do you drive a cheaper, unsafer car rather than an expensive safer one?

Would you be better off if your cheaper car were banned and you were 
required to buy the more expensive one or do without?




>> Well, no.  Actually houses get cheaper.  All industries in an economy 
>> have
>> the same expected profit.  If they didn't investment would leave low
> profit
>> industries and enter high profit ones until they did.  So house builders
> as
>> a class can't have higher expected profits, competition will bid them 
>> down
>> to the average for the economy.
>
> Um, you are talking about "publically traded companies", which are the 
> only
> ones that actually officially take "investment".  Private companies -- as
> many home builders are -- get to keep the profit for themselves.


And how do they keep other people from noticing that building is a lucrative 
industry and decided to enter it rather than the exciting field of making 8 
track tapes?  ?

Economics isn't hard if you aren't fucking stupid...



> Besides, this isn't true.


Of course it's true.  It is approximatrely impossible for it not to be true. 
People look for the greatest return.  The only long lasting situation is 
where all industries have the same expected profits.




>  During the high tech boom Internet companies that
> made no profits had hugely high share prices, whereas the telecom company 
> I
> worked for lost share price when we made millions of dollars of profits 
> but
> that weren't as high as people would like.


Which is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.




>> >> Better than using claims in a country where there is an incentive to 
>> >> be
>> > less
>> >> than totally honest.
>> >
>> > But if the lawsuits pass, wouldn't both sides be able to present their
> own
>> > "less than totally honest" statements, and the judges determine that 
>> > the
>> > weight of evidence is on the side against the companies?
>>
>>
>>
>> <snicker....
>>
>> Right...
>
> Who do you expect to have better lawyers: corporations, or poor saps who
> happen to live in the houses they built?


Like I said, you can't trust courts...




>> >> > If all houses are built with it, and if you can't get the land to
> build
>> > a
>> >> > house a reasonable distance from where you work, what choice DO you
>> > have?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It t's everywhere, and it's supposedly so dangerous, why isn't there a
>> > huge
>> >> pile of dead bodies?  By the arguments presented here no one would 
>> >> ever
>> > die
>> >> of anything else.
>> >
>> > This has nothing to do with what was discussed above
>>
>>
>>
>> It has *everything* to do with this discussion.  You *cannot* honestly
>> simultaneously argue that it presents an unreasonably high risk, AND that
>> there are not a lot of casualties from it after it was so widely used for
> so
>> long.
>
> But the claim here is about how easy it is for people VULNERABLE TO 
> ASBESTOS
> to find a house that doesn't use it if all houses use it.  So as I said,
> this has nothing to do with that.  One death would count as equally as a
> million FOR THIS PARTICULAR ARGUMENT.


There was never a time when all houses used it, so you're arguing a fantasy.




>>  ... which was how much
>> > choice you had to live in an asbestos-free home.  This is more limited
>> > than
>> > you asserted.
>>
>>
>> You have absolute choice.  No one is going to force you to buy a home at
>> gunpoint.
>
> Unless you build your house, you do not get to control whether asbestos is
> used in it or not.



Of course you do- you just don't buy it if you don't want it.  No one is 
going to force you at gunpoint.