India to revisit response to Bhopal leak
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/10364407.stm

"Some 3,500 people died within days and more than 15,000 in the years since."

Only 470 mil in compensation for that?! That's more casualties then 9/11.

This surprises you, Herring? Consider what kind of country the plant was operated in, the initial response, and the ultimate culpability of UC. One would think that a country with a strong socialist government and more safety and health regs than the US would have take UC to task, but it didn't. Why do you suppose that is?

Well I've heard of the incident but never really understood the maginitude of it. It is the biggest industrial catastrophe ever. Really grim death toll that could easily top the 3500 and be as high as 15 000 + and the wounded / otherwise affected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
:nope:

Reading that wiki-entry it seems that there have been plenty of reasons as to why the issue is still around. One reason might be the fact that India is a developing nation and as such it doesn't warrant a bigger response from the world community for compensations, clean-up efforts by the guilty parties etc.

Where did the 470 mil go ?

Well at least for a new big cemetary.

Why should the responsibility fall on the world community? India approved the Bhopal plant and it was built to their exacting specifications. True, the nation is a third-world country, but why should it be poor? It is a large and resource-rich country. What have they done wrong?

By not fighting wars of aggression around the globe?

Sorry, I was under the impression you wanted to discuss this. If you'd rather turn a discussion about India into a USA bash-fest I'll be more than happy to listen.

That's a good question. Any takers? I would like to know. :-?

OTH, come on over to the US and live here a few years. It's really not the messed-up warmonger as you've been lead to believe. :ping:

The world community should value dead Indians as much as it values dead westerners. Simple enough? Yes, India is not very wealthy so it has to accept bad deals from big corporations and risks such as industrial accidents are much bigger then in the west where much more emphasis can be placed on worker safety etc. In India there is a kind of restriction - free capitalism in action that has very little rules that govern it and the few rules that exist aren't enforced.

And as far as India being a big country with lots of resources, what resources exactly?

Manpower, for starts. But, how to employ them all and create a prosperous country? :o Many of their well-educated are over here working in the tech industries, so there's a portion of their workforce that could probably be put to better use in India. That doesn't take care of the unskilled labor force, though. Nor the question of natural resources, now that I think of it.

My brain is getting soggy.... http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/pict...pictureid=2286

Or dead Africans. I agree. But sometimes there is just nothing you can do about the problem. Trillions have been spent in foreign aid to countries that have improved little, or not at all, or even moved backwards. You can't buy prosperity*, you have to earn it, and in order to do that you need a framework that promotes free trade.


Actually, India is quite socialist. It takes years and years to even start a business there, as every proposal has to be put to a government committee and evaluated for merit. Then business has to navigate legal minefield just to operate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_labour_laws
I believe you were saying something about labor law? Feel free to look up other parts of Indian law, they're all pretty much that bad.

I think India's problem, if it has one regarding law, is that there are so many laws that they tend to be ignored and or selectively enforced. That's just plain bad for business.

As krashkart mentioned, there is the vast amount of human resources, and India is one of the world's largest producers of coal. They have some oil, a host of semiprecious minerals and a fairly large supply of ore. Most of the land is arable, IIRC.

I'm not sure about the rest, but let me ask you this: What resources does Hong Kong have? Or Singapore?

The answer is none, they're just small rocks, but the free market has enabled people to generate standards of living far above those in India, and they even have greater population density.

Also of note is that Singapore is an almost totalitarian state, while Hong Kong remains mostly free in terms of individual rights, but both are prosperous because of the shared lassiez-faire approach to the market, suggesting that this is the key reason for their success.


*With the exception of nations that are drowning in oil or some other precious resource - Norway, UAE, Kuwait, etc...

Who decides when there is nothing to do about a problem? Did you know that foreign aid, all of it together, is miniscule when compared to the value of all goods and services that are 'brought out of' the devoloping nations, India included? And I'm not just talking about the old era of colonialism, I'm talking about today. Why do you think outsourcing makes sense? Because they can pay a lot less to the workers in the developing world etc.

In the end the low salaries, lax laws, etc. make sense for western companies to set up shop there, or in some other developing nation. Possibly India has raised itself from the lowest of the low but it is still far away from the likes of, say, China, a comparable nation. And even China has lots of issues with worker rights, environmental issues etc. like the link above shows.

I don't think I'm buying into your "India has lots of laws" - argument.

Bribery etc. goes a long way in the developing world.

The case with India is that it can sell non-renewable natural resources but that's about it. And the thing about non-renewable natural resources is, they don't regenerate. And when the diamonds/gold/whatever runs out, the wealth has gone elsewhere and all that is left is a big hole in ground and lots of pollution in a particular developing nation.

Political alliances? Are you saying that countries like UK and US are willing to dump as much venture capital on India if they went a little more capitalist and stopped enforcing the laws that they have? Bhopal as a case doesn't speak in favour of that.

Oh ok, "free market". Politics etc. had nothing to do with it.

You know you talk about "free trade" etc. but as I'm sure you've heard economics, politics and even warfare are parts of the same entity. What became as a result of the Cold war and the economic warfare that went on during it doesn't necessarily reflect any kind of absolute theory about success of nations. If that were the case then countries like Sweden and Finland would be the poorest of the poor with low to moderate natural resources and quite social democrat models of society. Still these nations top the "best nations to live in" - lists year after year and decade after decade.

Brought out or bought out? True, prices are generally cheaper there, but the standard of living is also lower, so each dollar counts for more, and money given is money given no matter how you look at it. It's just frosting on the cake of economic development. Too bad all the people usually get of that is the crumbs, thanks to their own state.

Not to be an ass or anything OTH but, "duh"!:03: What you're missing is that the very thing you decry here is what enables countries to raise their standards of living and economic productivity. Everyone has to go through this process, the only difference is that some went through it before others and some still refuse. Look at what China has done with the special economic zones, where free trade is quite permissable. They aren't as good as Europe or Japan, but they are catching up fast, and they are certainly doing better than India. Most of India looks a lot more like impoverished western China because the policies are basically the same.

The same is true of any developing nation. The US and Europe went through that phase, too, but even that phase beats what came before it, which is precisely why it is the next phase.

India is digging its own grave with its futile attempts at social engineering.

May I ask why? I showed you just a small section of the overview of it. World Bank agrees with me. The Indian economy apparently agrees with me. Why don't you?

It does to some extent, mostly because developing nations and underdeveloped nations are prone to corruption, but bribery does not build nations. Free enterprise does.

Ok, what non-renewable natural resources does the first world have that India doesn't? It isn't wind, it isn't crops, it isn't water, it isn't animals or sunshine, so what is it?

Are we talking about the nation-states themselves or the industry of said nation-states? Industry is still dumping quite a bit of venture capital into India, despite the obstacles, as a result there has been a flood of cheap Indian labor in those industries. The conditions aren't great, but they beat the hell out of what they were doing before, apparently.

Whether the US or the UK or anyone else dumps aid into India is quite irrelevant. There is no amount of aid on earth that is going to create an economy for 1 billion people under the system they have. Aid is just a bandage, not a fix.

If you have a compelling case for politics being the motivating factor behind these nations' successes, I'd love to hear it. Please, show me how much aid, was given to these nations. Tell me how they are not subject to import quotas or taxes when they sell their products abroad, even in the US. I mean that. I don't know what you're on about, dude.

Finland is #17 on the index of economic freedom and Finland is #21. Not great, but better than 90% of the world. However, Sweden and Finland also both have relatively new economies, restructured after WW2 by massive amounts of aid, and again by an influx of aid after the Cold War. Both nations are also in debt from heavy spending on social programs. Neither boasts a major currency. Their combined GDP is probably less than a trillion dollars. Hardly economic powerhouses.

Whether or not they can be qualified as "good" on a list of places to places to live depends upon the criterion used. Many indices use things like the presence of nationalized healthcare as a positive, when in fact there is a good case for it being a negative, especially in terms of economic sustainability.

For a better overview of the subject and the reason why the amount paid is/was so low, I recommend the Amnesty International report, which can be found here. Quite a good read, if you have the time and answers the majority of questions.