[Zelandakh]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-June-12, 09:48, said:

He was rewarding those who either contributed heavily to his Presidential campaign or had helped him to attain the Presidency of the United States of America.

Unfortunately, Mother Nature had other plans for Louisiana. So a seemingly harmless "low-cost" type of cronyism became a bill due costing 1,833 American lives.

I suspect you are vastly underestimating the effect here. I am confident that the number of avoidable deaths attributable to the Bush administration through "favours" to campaign contributors dwarfs those from Katrina.

One of the places I have lived is Aberdeen. Amongst other things, Aberdeen is the centre of the UK oil and gas industry. One of the guys I met during my time there was in charge of oil rig safety at a large oil company. He described his job as "deciding how many people would die that year". It works like this - the oil companies know the cost of every safety improvement together with the expected number of deaths and injuries it would avoid. From this data they decide which safety regulations to implement and which not to. Lobbying helps to ensure that they only need to implement the ones they want to.

Scale this process up to the size of the US oil and gas industry - heavy contributors to GWB's campaign funds - and you have a lot more than 1833 deaths.

[Zelandakh]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-June-12, 11:13, said:

Please provide links showing that world leaders were supporting the billion $ IMF wires to financially imploding Russia circa mid 1998.

I have already shown you at least two decent articles detailing that top IMF leaders were against the wires to Russia in July/August 1998 since the Russian parliament had NOT enacted any budgetary measures.

The quote I provided came from your own link and stated that several countries were providing cash to Russia at that time, some directly and others, like the USA, through the IMF. It seems strange to me that you would think these countries were providing their own cash but were against Russia receiving it from anyone else. More to the point though, I am old enough to remember the late 90s quite well and remember full well how keen the West was to prop up the regime. I have seen nothing in the way of contemporary sources to dispute this.

From what I can make out, the start of the story behind the $4.8 billion was a "prank" by a Russian newspaper accusing PM from the period (1998) Kiriyenko of embezzling the money. No evidence was provided and the paper lost a resulting libel case. The rest is modern spin and conspiracy.

As for direct evidence that the Western powers were behind Russia in 1998. Well quite frankly I am not willing to devote a lot of time to shooting down every tin hat conspiracy theory that makes it to these forums but here is a contemporary story from the time I found within 2 minutes mentioning that Germany, Britain and France were all supporting the Russian government's plans, not to mention the $1.5 billion that Japan loaned them. But that couldn't be right could it? It doesn't fit the conspiracy theorist's plotline.

[RedSpawn]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-June-12, 13:34, said:

The quote I provided came from your own link and stated that several countries were providing cash to Russia at that time, some directly and others, like the USA, through the IMF. It seems strange to me that you would think these countries were providing their own cash but were against Russia receiving it from anyone else. More to the point though, I am old enough to remember the late 90s quite well and remember full well how keen the West was to prop up the regime. I have seen nothing in the way of contemporary sources to dispute this.

From what I can make out, the start of the story behind the $4.8 billion was a "prank" by a Russian newspaper accusing PM from the period (1998) Kiriyenko of embezzling the money. No evidence was provided and the paper lost a resulting libel case. The rest is modern spin and conspiracy.

As for direct evidence that the Western powers were behind Russia in 1998. Well quite frankly I am not willing to devote a lot of time to shooting down every tin hat conspiracy theory that makes it to these forums but here is a contemporary story from the time I found within 2 minutes mentioning that Germany, Britain and France were all supporting the Russian government's plans, not to mention the $1.5 billion that Japan loaned them. But that couldn't be right could it? It doesn't fit the conspiracy theorist's plotline.

I have shown you three different articles showing that the Clinton administration was going against the grain on this $4.8 billion IMF loan. One of the articles was a working paper from the IMF! Clinton made a statement at the end of May 31, 1998 that undermined the IMF's ability to force Russia to devalue its ruble as part of the economic plan to stabilize Russia's market. He promised economic support despite Russia's intransigence on embracing tight monetary policies. It's odd!

I am suggesting that Clinton's timing and support for the $4.8 billion wire to a failing Russia should be reviewed ESPECIALLY after the IMF loans of $12.5 billion between 1992-96 haven't been paid back AND Russia's parliament has not approved any significant budgetary changes in light of the Asian economic contagion. It makes no economic sense to send a $4.8 billion wire to the Titanic if the ship has already hit the iceberg and the Russian leaders are not embracing tight monetary policy to stem the damage. Russia was already in meltdown mode:

• Russian debt was rising from 1991-1998. Please see http://www.colorado....-72.html%23n_2_ .Russia's debt rose from $96.8 billion in 1991 to $147.1 billion in 1998! Thus, the Russian government was knowingly running budget deficits to finance operations.
  
• Asian Economic Crisis reduced oil to $8 a barrel in late 1997 and destroyed Russia's revenue stream to finance government operations.
  
• There was a large amount of capital outflow from Russia due to market instability and panic.
  
• Upon helping with the re-election of Yeltsin, the powerful Russian oligarch reduced their tax payments. It was no coincidence that nearly all the main enterprises with tax arrears at the end of 1996 were oil or gas companies. See https://www.imf.org/...004/wp04155.pdf ===> page 21.
  
• The Russian government did not want to embrace tight monetary policy for the long-term ==> resisting devaluing the Ruble to alleviate market pressures.
  
• The Russian economy was shrinking ===> productivity was declining especially since the Russian government did not diversify its revenue stream. Also, workers who weren't paid on time (or at all) typically reduced their productivity as a sign of protest. Also unemployment in Russia was rising due to the capital outflow and flight.
  
• There were rumors and obvious signs of fiscal mismanagement where the IMF did not institute a commensurate amount of supervision in light of Russia's deteriorating economy.

You think it makes sense to send money to Russia with all of the above-mentioned bullets occurring?

How the heck can a lowly Patrick Buchanan read the tea leaves properly?

See http://buchanan.org/...sia-default-310 ===> He says let Russia default on the IMF debt and stop sending them taxpayer funded money on 06/09/1998.
See http://articles.lati...pinion/op-17927 ===> On August 30, 1998 after the implosion, Buchanan says, "I told you so!" and suggests criminal behavior at the IMF (or elsewhere).

Don't worry, it's obvious you are going to defend the Clinton administration's position on the $4.8 billion wire in 1998 when it makes absolutely no sense and goes against the top IMF officials goals at the time. Cue that sexy a$$ saxophone solo please. I guess the IMF should also be surprised when that $4.8 billion was embezzled in short order?

[Winstonm]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-June-12, 14:29, said:

I have shown you three different articles showing that the Clinton administration was going against the grain on this $4.8 billion IMF loan. One of the articles was a working paper from the IMF! Clinton made a statement at the end of May 31, 1998 that undermined the IMF's ability to force Russia to devalue its ruble as part of the economic plan to stabilize Russia's market. He promised economic support despite Russia's intransigence on embracing tight monetary policies. It's odd!

I am suggesting that Clinton's timing and support for the $4.8 billion wire to a failing Russia should be reviewed ESPECIALLY after the IMF loans of $12.5 billion between 1992-96 haven't been paid back AND Russia's parliament has not approved any significant budgetary changes in light of the Asian economic contagion. It makes no economic sense to send a $4.8 billion wire to the Titanic if the ship has already hit the iceberg and the Russian leaders are not embracing tight monetary policy to stem the damage. Russia was already in meltdown mode:

• Russian debt was rising from 1991-1998. Please see http://www.colorado....-72.html%23n_2_ .Russia's debt rose from $96.8 billion in 1991 to $147.1 billion in 1998! Thus, the Russian government was knowingly running budget deficits to finance operations.
  
• Asian Economic Crisis reduced oil to $8 a barrel in late 1997 and destroyed Russia's revenue stream to finance government operations.
  
• There was a large amount of capital outflow from Russia due to market instability and panic.
  
• Upon helping with the re-election of Yeltsin, the powerful Russian oligarch reduced their tax payments. It was no coincidence that nearly all the main enterprises with
  tax arrears at the end of 1996 were oil or gas companies. See https://www.imf.org/...004/wp04155.pdf ===> page 21.
  
• The Russian government did not want to embrace tight monetary policy for the long-term ==> resisting devaluing the Ruble to alleviate market pressures.
  
• The Russian economy was shrinking ===> productivity was declining especially since the Russian government did not diversify its revenue stream. Also, workers who weren't paid on time (or at all) typically reduced their productivity as a sign of protest. Also unemployment in Russia was rising due to the capital outflow and flight.
  
• There were rumors and obvious signs of fiscal mismanagement where the IMF did not institute a commensurate amount of supervision in light of Russia's deteriorating economy.

You think it makes sense to send money to Russia with all of the above-mentioned bullets occurring?

How the heck can a lowly Patrick Buchanan read the tea leaves properly?

See http://buchanan.org/...sia-default-310 ===> He says let Russia default on the IMF debt and stop sending them taxpayer funded money on 06/09/1998.
See http://articles.lati...pinion/op-17927 ===> On August 30, 1998 after the implosion, Buchanan says, "I told you so!" and suggests criminal behavior at the IMF (or elsewhere).

Don't worry, it's obvious you are going to defend the Clinton administration's position on the $4.8 billion wire in 1998 when it makes absolutely no sense and goes against the top IMF officials goals at the time. Cue that sexy a$$ saxophone solo please. I guess the IMF should also be surprised when that $4.8 billion was embezzled in short order?

You are still using the Whatabout dodge to distract from the current occupant of the White House. I would ask you either defend or not defend Donald Trump and his administration instead of off-topic tangents.

[RedSpawn]

 Winstonm, on 2017-June-12, 15:40, said:

You are still using the Whatabout dodge to distract from the current occupant of the White House. I would ask you either defend or not defend Donald Trump and his administration instead of off-topic tangents.

Oh, https://www2.gwu.edu...-04_sokolov.pdf .

This is a 06/04/98 speech from Veniamin Sokolov who is the Russian auditor of the Account Chamber of the Russian Federation, which is the only constitutional control body independent of the president and the government of the Russian Federation. He is like an Inspector General and made this speech while visiting America.

Quote

Corruption is involved with all of the processes of privatization, and the question of how money circulates no longer has any relationship whatsoever to the market economy. The Chamber of Accounts has conducted a complete review and analysis of these processes, which we finished in 1996. One of our main conclusions of this audit was that privatization, taken as a whole, was carried out with a huge number of violations of law. If we were talking about violations of old Soviet law, then one could understand and justify this situation. But as a matter of fact, even the laws drafted by Mr. Chubais and Mr. Gaidar were violated, and therefore, one cannot find any economic rationale or any economic goals of these processes. We have outrageous examples of corruption, which are basically connected with financial manipulations. We have come to this conclusion as a result of what we call a complete documentary audit of actions by the Ministry of Finance, which is totally lacking any kind of systematic accounting for incomes and outflows from the federal budget.

Yes, the IMF should sent $4.8 billion to Russia in July 1998 when Russia's own Inspector General is saying -- FRAUD & CORRUPTION ALERT on 06/04/98?

The Inspector General of Russia is saying the internal control structure is rife with price manipulations and violations of law and provides examples on page 5-6.

Fair enough, we can return our regular programming back to Trump. However, before you call something conspiracy theory, you should make sure that what Clinton did even makes sense in light of the circumstances and with this much information even from Russia's own Auditor-----something is fishy!

[RedSpawn]

 Winstonm, on 2017-June-08, 11:57, said:

To be fair, I said I didn't like Trump because he is a slimeball. I did not say he should be impeached because of that, as slimeballism is not a high crime or misdemeanor.

He deserves impeachment for numerous other acts, including violation of the emolument clause and borderline if not actual obstruction of justice. Keep in mind, impeachment is a political act and as such clear crimes are not required - Congress determines what acts are high crimes and misdemeanors.

http://www.salon.com...nal-violations/

Well the state Attorney Generals are trying to sue Trump for violation of the Emoluments clause since the sitting Attorney General (Sessions) can't prosecute a sitting President (his boss).

Oh so messy!

[RedSpawn]

 diana_eva, on 2017-June-07, 04:16, said:

Does anyone understand what's happening in the Gulf? Why Qatar? Why isn't anyone interfering - should they?

How in the world is Qatar hiring Former Attorney General John Aschcroft to serve as Arbitrator for the Gulf crisis between President Trump and its Arab neighbors?

Quote

The government of Qatar has hired former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to help the country challenge accusations from its Arab neighbors and U.S. President Donald Trump that it supports terrorism.

See http://journaldumagh...-dialogue-over/

http://journaldumagh...st-as-baseless/

And the Gulf partners want to curb Al-Jazeera's freedom of the press rights since it tries to present a balanced view on issues.

Wow! It just gets curiouser and curiouser.

[kenberg]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-June-12, 16:32, said:

How in the world is Qatar hiring Former Attorney General John Aschcroft to serve as Arbitrator for the Gulf crisis between President Trump and its Arab neighbors?


See http://journaldumagh...-dialogue-over/

http://journaldumagh...st-as-baseless/

And the Gulf partners want to curb Al-Jazeera's freedom of the press rights since it tries to present a balanced view on issues.

Wow! It just gets curiouser and curiouser.

Yes, and the pills your mother give you don't do anything at all.

[diana_eva]

Soviet States of America shaping up:
http://edition.cnn.c...ting/index.html

Quote

You think I am exaggerating. I am not. Here's what White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said about Trump: "We thank you for the opportunity and blessing to serve your agenda."

[Winstonm]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-June-12, 15:41, said:

Oh, https://www2.gwu.edu...-04_sokolov.pdf .

This is a 06/04/98 speech from Veniamin Sokolov who is the Russian auditor of the Account Chamber of the Russian Federation, which is the only constitutional control body independent of the president and the government of the Russian Federation. He is like an Inspector General and made this speech while visiting America.


Yes, the IMF should sent $4.8 billion to Russia in July 1998 when Russia's own Inspector General is saying -- FRAUD & CORRUPTION ALERT on 06/04/98?

The Inspector General of Russia is saying the internal control structure is rife with price manipulations and violations of law and provides examples on page 5-6.

Fair enough, we can return our regular programming back to Trump. However, before you call something conspiracy theory, you should make sure that what Clinton did even makes sense in light of the circumstances and with this much information even from Russia's own Auditor-----something is fishy!

I'll allow myself to be pulled in for just this one comment - considering the Soviet Union had collapsed and the West was trying to save Russia's struggling movement to democracy, $4.8 billion is chickenfeed to put into a bailout to try to prevent a collapse that could lead to the rise of another authoritarian government.

White Rabbit

[Winstonm]

 diana_eva, on 2017-June-12, 18:17, said:

Soviet States of America shaping up:
http://edition.cnn.c...ting/index.html

Trump's Kim Jun-un impersonation.

[Winstonm]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-June-12, 16:15, said:

http://www.salon.com...nal-violations/

Well the state Attorney Generals are trying to sue Trump for violation of the Emoluments clause since the sitting Attorney General (Sessions) can't prosecute a sitting President (his boss).

Oh so messy!

It's actually one state - Maryland (go ken!) - and the District of Columbia.

[RedSpawn]

 Winstonm, on 2017-June-12, 18:37, said:

I'll allow myself to be pulled in for just this one comment - considering the Soviet Union had collapsed and the West was trying to save Russia's struggling movement to democracy, $4.8 billion is chickenfeed to put into a bailout to try to prevent a collapse that could lead to the rise of another authoritarian government.

White Rabbit

For the President to save the Russian economy from collapse, he needs to be confident that the $4.8 billion loan will be used for its intended purposes.

Since the Russian Inspector General has concluded that the internal control structure in the Russian Federation is rife with corruption, price manipulation, and dare I say fraud, why would the IMF assume that the Russian leaders will use the $4.8 billion for its intended purposes?

Yeltsin's assurances are inadequate since the accounting and budgeting process is out of control. The IMF should not wire money to the Russian Federation until it can conduct a full due diligence on the concerns the Inspector General highlighted.

The Clinton administration has a higher fiduciary duty to the American public and therefore must protect and safeguard tax payer funded bailout money from unnecessary loss and waste. It can worry about saving face on the pending Russian default later. This is called putting PRINCIPLES before POLITICS.

[diana_eva]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-June-12, 15:41, said:

Oh, https://www2.gwu.edu...-04_sokolov.pdf .

This is a 06/04/98 speech from Veniamin Sokolov who is the Russian auditor of the Account Chamber of the Russian Federation, which is the only constitutional control body independent of the president and the government of the Russian Federation. He is like an Inspector General and made this speech while visiting America.


Yes, the IMF should sent $4.8 billion to Russia in July 1998 when Russia's own Inspector General is saying -- FRAUD & CORRUPTION ALERT on 06/04/98?

The Inspector General of Russia is saying the internal control structure is rife with price manipulations and violations of law and provides examples on page 5-6.

Fair enough, we can return our regular programming back to Trump. However, before you call something conspiracy theory, you should make sure that what Clinton did even makes sense in light of the circumstances and with this much information even from Russia's own Auditor-----something is fishy!

It's important to understand the context. All the countries that exited strict centralized economy have been ridden with corruption for years, most of them still fight it. Many enormous and also smaller industries were taken off state control and put out for privatization. Just image the opportunities for people who were in power and then they have access to these businesses. Perestroika and glasnost were widely supported by the West, despite the corruption. You can't just get out of a centralized system straight into capitalism and democracy without anyone trying to game the flaws in the transition process. Should the international powers not support a country fighting corruption on its way to democracy? Perhaps... but I'd say it's in everyone's best interest to help smooth the process with a huge power such as Russia, provided that its efforts to transparency are credible.

[Zelandakh]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-June-12, 14:29, said:

You think it makes sense to send money to Russia with all of the above-mentioned bullets occurring?

And I have shown you without any wriggle room that the developed world was squarely behind the Yeltsin-Kiriyenko government at the time of the transfer. Whether it was a good idea, particularly with the additional benefit of hindsight, is a completely different thing. There was plenty of reason to suspect issues to turn up, not least because the Russian government/economy had been losing an incredible amount of cash every year and not fulfilling various obligations since 1992.

But we do not have to worry about that do we? Your assertion is that Clinton was personally pushing for the transfer of funds to Russia due to being blackmailed. You make this claim despite not having a shred of evidence to support it. So you are using the American government being alone in supporting Russia as a proxy for going out on a limb in an unusual position. Except that the government of most developed countries took a similar stance. Now you are saying, "oh but the IMF was only luke warm about it back in June." Well yes, that is true, but it is hardly evidence of the proxy you are trying to make; and the proxy itself is incredibly weak.

This is typical conspiracy theory attire - take one thing, restate it as something else, then equate that to something even bigger. So let us lay it out - the American government supported something that Britain, France, Germany, Japan, etc also supported. Given that, please provide evidence, preferably direct evidence, of any blackmail.

And finally, talking about blackmail and to bring this back to DT, any comment about his two main blackmail stories - the threats to Comey and the alleged material held by Russia? The latter appears to have only slightly more evidence than your claims against BC; but then again your burden of proof is different to mine so I imagine you are pretty upset about it...

[RedSpawn]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-June-12, 12:43, said:

I suspect you are vastly underestimating the effect here. I am confident that the number of avoidable deaths attributable to the Bush administration through "favours" to campaign contributors dwarfs those from Katrina.

One of the places I have lived is Aberdeen. Amongst other things, Aberdeen is the centre of the UK oil and gas industry. One of the guys I met during my time there was in charge of oil rig safety at a large oil company. He described his job as "deciding how many people would die that year". It works like this - the oil companies know the cost of every safety improvement together with the expected number of deaths and injuries it would avoid. From this data they decide which safety regulations to implement and which not to. Lobbying helps to ensure that they only need to implement the ones they want to.

Scale this process up to the size of the US oil and gas industry - heavy contributors to GWB's campaign funds - and you have a lot more than 1833 deaths.

Fascinating. So is this the unavoidable collateral damage of lobbying?

I don't think our judicial system will adequately address this matter since it is difficult to incarcerate a legal fiction for criminal behavior.

Also, corporations are usually prepared for fines, penalties, and legal damages arising from civil suits since their accounting procedures require that they review and adjust accounting reserves (contingency funds) for pending litigation.

[Winstonm]

The issue of concern is why doesn't Donald Trump show any interest in this: (from Bloomberg)

Quote

In Illinois, investigators found evidence that cyber intruders tried to delete or alter voter data. The hackers accessed software designed to be used by poll workers on Election Day, and in at least one state accessed a campaign finance database. Details of the wave of attacks, in the summer and fall of 2016, were provided by three people with direct knowledge of the U.S. investigation into the matter. In all, the Russian hackers hit systems in a total of 39 states, one of them said.

The scope and sophistication so concerned Obama administration officials that they took an unprecedented step -- complaining directly to Moscow over a modern-day “red phone.”

I can think of a couple of at least two possibilities: Trump is connected to Russia in some way or he is acting like some petulant child due to his immense hatred of Obama and taking a position 180 different from Obama for no other good reason.

[RedSpawn]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-June-13, 08:03, said:

And I have shown you without any wriggle room that the developed world was squarely behind the Yeltsin-Kiriyenko government at the time of the transfer. Whether it was a good idea, particularly with the additional benefit of hindsight, is a completely different thing. There was plenty of reason to suspect issues to turn up, not least because the Russian government/economy had been losing an incredible amount of cash every year and not fulfilling various obligations since 1992.

But we do not have to worry about that do we? Your assertion is that Clinton was personally pushing for the transfer of funds to Russia due to being blackmailed. You make this claim despite not having a shred of evidence to support it. So you are using the American government being alone in supporting Russia as a proxy for going out on a limb in an unusual position. Except that the government of most developed countries took a similar stance. Now you are saying, "oh but the IMF was only luke warm about it back in June." Well yes, that is true, but it is hardly evidence of the proxy you are trying to make; and the proxy itself is incredibly weak.

This is typical conspiracy theory attire - take one thing, restate it as something else, then equate that to something even bigger. So let us lay it out - the American government supported something that Britain, France, Germany, Japan, etc also supported. Given that, please provide evidence, preferably direct evidence, of any blackmail.

And finally, talking about blackmail and to bring this back to DT, any comment about his two main blackmail stories - the threats to Comey and the alleged material held by Russia? The latter appears to have only slightly more evidence than your claims against BC; but then again your burden of proof is different to mine so I imagine you are pretty upset about it...

There is no benefit of hindsight. Almost all of the events in the bullets I mentioned occurred before the end of July 1998--before the collapse and before the IMF sent the $4.8 billion wire. The information was there but the Clinton administration chose to ignore it--even the damaging information from Russia's own Inspector General on 06/04/98. That is a month before the IMF sent the money.

IMF and others such as the World Bank didn't want to write off these highly impaired loans. It would be a politically unpopular position to declare default so they chose to ignore the economic fundamentals of the situation and give the "dope addict" his "fix".

Clinton chose to believe the sweet nothings that Yeltsin whispered in his ear more than the objections of the Inspector General auditing the Russian Federation's accounting books. That's rich!

All things considered, the Clinton administration put the financial and political interests of a corrupt failing Russia ahead of the public's interest to protect tax funded bailout money from imprudent and highly speculative investments. He rolled the political dice with reckless abandon and hit snake eyes.

So, we lose $4.8 billion which is only the functional equivalent of winning a $1,000,000 lottery 4,800 separate times. Chump change, right?

[Winstonm]

And the hits just keep on coming: Propublica reports:

Quote

Marc Kasowitz, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer in the Russia investigation, has boasted to friends and colleagues that he played a central role in the firing of Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, according to four people familiar with the conversations.

Kasowitz told Trump, “This guy is going to get you,” according to a person familiar with Kasowitz’s account.

Those who know Kasowitz say he is sometimes prone to exaggerating when regaling them with his exploits. But if true, his assertion adds to the mystery surrounding the motive and timing of Bharara’s firing.

Curioser and curioser.

[barmar]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-June-12, 12:43, said:

I suspect you are vastly underestimating the effect here. I am confident that the number of avoidable deaths attributable to the Bush administration through "favours" to campaign contributors dwarfs those from Katrina.

One of the places I have lived is Aberdeen. Amongst other things, Aberdeen is the centre of the UK oil and gas industry. One of the guys I met during my time there was in charge of oil rig safety at a large oil company. He described his job as "deciding how many people would die that year". It works like this - the oil companies know the cost of every safety improvement together with the expected number of deaths and injuries it would avoid. From this data they decide which safety regulations to implement and which not to. Lobbying helps to ensure that they only need to implement the ones they want to.

Scale this process up to the size of the US oil and gas industry - heavy contributors to GWB's campaign funds - and you have a lot more than 1833 deaths.

Many industries use similar calculus -- they weigh the cost of insurance for settlements of injury claims versus the cost to improve the products to prevent those injuries in the first place.

And even when there are safety regulations, they just include the cost of the fines for violations in the calculation.

BP is still in business and doing fine despite all they had to pay out due to the Gulf oil spill.