[XBob]

709 - "Look at Ann Richard's environmental laws when she was governor of Texas compared to Bush's. Ann's laws were much more restrictive, but the cost of compliance was too high and it didn't make economic sense for businesses to follow the law,"

Ah, here you advocate breaking the laws to make a profit.

Great 'responsibility'.

Not changing the laws, but breaking the laws.

[discostu]

I'm not advocating breaking laws to make a profit, I'm telling you why it happens. It's a matter of simple mathematics. If it's going to cost you 100 million dollars to comply with a law, and the fines for breaking the law are only 5 million a year, and their the type of law that changes almost every gubenotorial term (4 to 6 years) what is the economically intelligent thing to do? At most in fines you'll pay 30 million bucks, breaking the law saves you 70 million. In a situation like that complying with the law makes you a good person, but it also makes you a stupid CEO and a bunch of decisions like that will make you a former CEO.

Learn to understand the difference between advocating and explaining. I think it would be great for every business to obey every law, but having taken BUS101 I know that's not going to happen and the Texas environmental laws show one of the reasons it happens. Poorly written laws make good economic sense to violate, well written laws make good economic sense to OBEY. That's why I say restrictions need to be thought out, good restrictions are ones the businesses will WANT to obey.