Liability limit has become a symbol of corporate greed in passing the risk of disaster to the U.S. government and U.S. citizens.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Liability is being assessed against companies who inadvertently have shipped a virus to another company. Rather than risk the incredibly bad PR, these companies fork over.
Who gets the risks? The risks are given to the consumer, the unsuspecting consumer and the poor work force. And who gets the benefits? The benefits are only for the corporations, for the money makers.
Liability does apply with respect to the amount of the oil spill.
Regulation creates a moral hazard.
When you are going up the corporate ladder or the government ladder, you have to take some risk.
All company bosses want a policy on corporate social responsibility. The positive effect is hard to quantify, but the negative consequences of a disaster are enormous.
Market discipline can only limit moral hazard to the extent that debt and equity holders believe that, in the event of distress, they will bear costs.
As we try to make the financial system safer, we must inevitably confront the problem of moral hazard.
Where there is a problem, the risks to the public are greater than they've ever been before.
Politically speaking, it's always easier to shell out money for a disaster that has already happened, with clearly identifiable victims, than to invest money in protecting against something that may or may not happen in the future.
No opposing quotes found.