Comments for China: 5,335 students dead, missing in 2008 quake »
Posted By FunnyBoyz 7 months, 3 weeks ago in NewsBEIJING – A year after the massive Sichuan earthquake leveled hundreds of schools, sparking allegations of corruption and shoddy construction, China finally gave Thursday its first official tally of the numbers of students dead or missing: 5,335.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 23
-
Neutral
tadair9197 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
this is why communism doesn't work. you don't get the quality in building structures that you would have gotten in a market that allows competition. instead you say we need x buildings and we have y money -- make it work.
Reply
so, this is another example of how capitalism is superior to government.-
100%
frctm57 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I work in this business. Do you think contractors put bolts and rebar in building foundations because of competition? No, we have something in America called the Uniform Building Code with regional additions to this where state requirements and local laws produce different hazards. Turkey is not a communist country and lost close to 19 thousand people in an earthquake back in the nineties. Mexico City had a similar disaster in the eighties. Corruption in building practices is one of the primary culprits in inferior construction. Many of these countries have codes but they are not enforced. The reason for failure to comply is that it increases building costs and therefore makes your product "less competitive". Selling safety isn't sexy when it comes to homes and buildings. Most people are interested in square footage, cost, and aesthetic beauty.
Reply-
Neutral
tadair9197 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
question:
Reply
do you think america waited for a uniform building code to start building buildings? or do you think the uniform building code used those standards brought upon by an industrialized america thriving in capitalism?
this is the same fallacy that people cite when they say we need the department of education. the department of education didn't even exist until carter. but, what do you think -- that we didn't have schools until the department of education existed? our schools were fine and we were doing great. in fact, the quality has since decreased.-
100%
frctm57 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
what i am saying is capitalism left to its own devices would not adopt such a code or enforce it. Safety is a tough sell. Not easy to market. Too intangible a commodity to put a price on. When seat belts were first required by the DOT, the auto companies fought against these regulations. They said it would imply their cars were unsafe. The same was true with air bags. Now they're used as advertising points, but the market place did not initiate the demand for these items.
Reply-
Neutral
frctm57 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am not against markets and capitalism. I just recognize government has a legitimate role as a referee in the market. If everyone is required to comply with minimal standards of safety, they have to compete on cost using other factors that are more important to most buyers. WE as consumers don't have time to know if Lee Chow's restaurant is cheaper because they don't keep their restaurant clean versus the Joe's Kwok which is a model of cleanliness. I would argue that government regulation is a boon to capitalism when properly enforced and understood. Before the AMA, real doctors had to compete with medicine men who sold snake oils and panaceas off the back of wagons. There has to be someone who acts as a manager of the game so to speak and to look out for the publics interest.
Reply-
Neutral
tadair9197 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
and what is your opinion on more controversial government interventions such as "leave no child behind schooling to the test" or "propping up failed auto makers on the backs of our grandchildren?" do you believe that there is ever a point in which government oversteps, even your boundary?
Reply-
Neutral
frctm57 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
yes, I'm such a radical believing that government has a legitimate role in our society. Of course I have boundaries. I don't know enough about "no child left behind" to offer an opinion of merit. As for the auto industries, I have to admit I can't be objective here. I would save them, only because they are cultural and historical icons that I associate with America's greatness. This is not based upon rational imperatives but nostalgia but also upon a faith that American ingenuity can step up to the plate and make the auto companies profitable again. In proportion to the costs, I consider the auto bail outs to be much more rewarding than the banking sector even if the banks have a more vital and general role to the performance of the overall economy. I don't believe that economic theories should ever acquire the status of a religion. I am not an ideological purist. You do what works while it is working and when it stops working, you change it. If government regulation becomes too extreme or severe and it chokes off trade, reduce it. This is what Reagan did for the airlines and it brought down the cost of flying and increased competition. But guess what? After a few years of consolidation through hostile takeovers, mergers, and acquisitions, it has become oligopic competition again. That is to say that there are few players and more cooperation than competition among them. The way they cut costs now is to compromise the quality of service. Maybe its time to upset that apple cart. Though I admit I have no remedy in mind but i also don't feel like its a crisis right now that demands impending action. For me, the degree of government involvement is never a fixed ratio but a measure contingent upon facts and circumstances. Leave the newspaper boy alone, but the chemical industry will need a little more attention.
Reply-
Neutral
tadair9197 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"This is not based upon rational imperatives but nostalgia but also upon a faith that American ingenuity can step up to the plate and make the auto companies profitable again."
Reply
I suppose, this is where we disagree. At this fundamental level.
Rational freedom and functionality versus faith and that mooshy feeling you get from hearing an american car drive by. If more government intervention is what you call "changing what doesn't work," then you may want to sharpen your observational skills. It is government intervention that is not working.-
Neutral
frctm57 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well I guess we should cut down all the trees in Yosemite, pave over yellow stone, dump toxic waste in the grand canyon. Can't let feelings or values impair progress. I concede in the case of the car companies, its arguable whether it parallels the publics interest, but your argument that government intervention isn't driven by rational imperatives just doesn't hold up. In fact the government is almost exclusively driven by rational imperatvies as opposed to feelings. The private sector is driven by individual freedom and wants and needs but the bulk of the free market is driven by emotional ideas about the good life. Advertisers know this and this is what they target. In fact, at the base of Liberatarian ideology, there is an emotional imperative that says no one can tell me what to do. Some how in pursuit of my interest without concern for others, everything is just going to work out. To me, that is mushy headed reasoning. Adults recognize that we have freedoms but also responsibilities. No freedoms are absolute in any successful social system. If you want to see what happens when we don't have the rule of law, look to the third world. Only the strong and the connected survive. There is no entity, like an effective government, to represent the collective interest of people who have been abused or extorted.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
tadair9197 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
well, there are people, including myself, also believe they have an inherent right to crash through their windshields, and to live in a house that isn't to code.
Reply
but that isn't relevant to the communism versus capitalism debate. that's just your own spin on justifying government intervention.
we are digressing but i visited a three-story home-made castle once that a man built all by himself. the county fought him for 2 decades, first on the maximum allowance on height restrictions, then on the safety of the building. But because we don't have "castles" defined in the uniform building code, nobody in government knew exactly how to interpret this new crazy spiraling building so they tried to shut him down.
let me tell you, that was absolutely the soundest building i've ever seen in my life.
so, whats your opinion on that?-
Neutral
frctm57 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
cities and counties can make exceptions for buildings of unique and exceptional character. You can apply for a variance and have a public hearing. There is flexibility and recourse built into the codes. Furthermore, the structure could be tested by engineers. But let me offer you another scenario.
Reply
You buy a house in a sleepy suburb. Your neighbor decides to turn his home into an all night hip hop club. Suddenly cars are showing up late, drunk teenagers are partying on your front sidewalk, kids are doing burn outs and spinning donuts in the street. WE have zoning ordinances that keep people from building commercial business in the middle of residential neighborhoods. Based upon your theory, you would of course support this guys night club because after all he owns the land and he can do whatever he wants with it.-
Neutral
tadair9197 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
this is similar to the cigarette smoking argument. people say "its my lungs, let me do what i want with them," but then unwittingly blow smoke in other people's faces and property causing damage.
Reply
so you still have a property rights issue.-
-
Neutral
tadair9197 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
efficiency? whats the difference? using your model, it goes through lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians before arriving at a "rule." in a civil court, it goes to your peers and we arrive at a "ruling."
Reply
how is this any less efficient?
in fact, it is more efficient.
plus it is a fallacy to assume that all property rights disputes automatically go to civil suits.
haven't you ever heard of talking to your neighbor? maybe you can find common ground without government intervention.-
Neutral
frctm57 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the zoning codes, once established, don't go through all those processes you describe. In fact, they are rarely challenged, so yes, it is more efficient. This is a regulatory power the government has had for a long time. If we left everything to people settling things in courts, that would be insane. Zoning commercial versus residential districts is just plain common sense. Each area has different needs, different requirements. If your in an industrial zone, you need more 440 volt electricity, rail heads, access to shipping lanes. Cities are planned in America and the results are generally good provided the people who planned them followed the rule of thumb that have been shown to work in the past. I'm afraid your position on this is very naive. You think we can design infrastructure and build cities without oversight? What you would have is a hodge podge of jumbled inefficient nonsense. Who would be in charge of roads for example? Roads are public property that we all depend on to get to our parcel of land. If everything were privately owned and run, you would have land locked parcels and need a helicopter to get to it. How would you bring in water, electricity, remove sewage and garbage? If it is every man for himself, it would be a nightmare.
Reply-
-
Neutral
frctm57 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
yes, and must conform to zoning ordinances and building codes in the process. Your talking about sub developments and planned communities. The government rarely builds anything directly in this country. However, they do control growth. If you want to build a suburb, you need to bring in utilities such as power and water. You need roads, schools, fire departments, police departments, parks and recreation and all the other amenities that people have come to depend upon. Resources like water are collectively owned by all of us but distributed by various government organizations according to long term planning. In Atlanta, the government did not control growth and the building and growth exploded to the point where they now have a water shortage and a battle brewing between various water districts regarding usage and rights. AS a consequence, they have come close to running out of water completely. Now let me ask you this. How would you parcel or distribute land if there was no agency that had oversight? Would it be first come, first serve? whoever has the deepest pockets? Who would designate where roads go and private plots start? How would you decide where to allocate water, like how much to give to agriculture and how much to send to cities? Power tends to accumulate in the private sector. What makes you think that power held in the private sector is benign?and in the government evil? What control do you have over others in the private sector if they decide to do something that you don't like?
Reply-
Neutral
tadair9197 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
zoning ordinances and building codes didn't even exist for the longest time. people were free to build whatever they wanted on their properties. gee, imagine that. i want a castle, i get a castle.
Reply
suddenly because building codes and zoning ordinances exist, that doesn't mean that these companies "rely" on them in order to exist.
harry brown reminds us that government cripples you, and then hands you a crutch stating that if it wasn't for them then you couldn't walk. see?
all this central planning that you speak of is handled in the private sector by competition. if water rights becomes an issue then that needs to be looked at. the reason power tends to accumulate in the private sector is because of the cozy relationship between government and corporations, not the other way around.
"What control do you have over others in the private sector if they decide to do something that you don't like?"
I've decided I don't like fat people. And I want the government to start regulating what we eat and how often we exercise. For the betterment of this country.-
Neutral
frctm57 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, and at one time America was a thinly populated place with farmers isolated by large tracks of land who had relatively little impact on one another. That doesn't exist today. However, even you concede the need for planning, you just don't see a public sector role here. Some one has to have the authority to mitigate the issues that extend beyond the interest of the individual to those of the collective we. Even in the beginning, our largest cities did have zoning ordinances and planning. There were surveyors who laid out streets, developed drainage systems, created public spaces. This process goes back to Rome one of the most successful cities in the ancient world. But to be honest, I think its time to end this. It is likely we will never see eye to eye and at some point it becomes a meaningless exercise to debate.
Reply-
Neutral
tadair9197 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Some one has to have the authority to mitigate the issues that extend beyond the interest of the individual to those of the collective we."
Reply
Companies that survive the longest and do the best are precisely those who best serve the collective we. Remember, it is government that is propping up the archaic gas-guzzling auto makers that destroy our environment. In a free market, they would be allowed to fail so that green auto makers can thrive. I personally know a CEO of an electric car maker who is stricken with grief over what is happening in Michigan. There is no stronger regulator than failure. There is nothing stronger than that. But I digress.
It boils down to your idea that the state has a greater good than the individual. You believe that the government has greater foresight than individual people do. This theory is currently not panning out very well for you.
So, I guess we agree to disagree here.
Also, you are forgetting that power corrupts. At least companies are regulated by the markets, potential failure, and lawsuits. Government has no such limitation.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
calitennflo7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
China was pressured by the US to do what led to this Earth Quake...and they built it on a fault...using the technics learned from US builders...the added weight is the causal of these , that are dead...Ref: History Channel
Reply
The US does things like this in War, and in diseases like cancer?-
tadair919Comment removed: Spam
-
Neutral
tadair9197 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"When buildings collapse following an earthquake anywhere in the world, the first instinct is to presume Mother Nature is at fault. The second is to wonder why the buildings weren’t built to account for the risk of earthquakes. The third step is where people go really wrong. They blame the builders for failing to observe building codes and the government for failing to enforce them."
Reply
"This is the state of commentary on the hellish situation in Dujiangyan, China, where tens of thousands of people died – including thousands of children in as many as 7,000 schoolrooms."
Keep Reading: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/chinese-earthq...
-
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.