I doubt any of us trust companies to do the right thing most of the time, but I think we all agree some regulations are dumb, and a loss for everyone except the people whose jobs depend on them.
For clarity, I have no idea if the tank inspection is a dumb regulation. And I realize without the regulations, they'd probably be dumping the oil behind the shop somewhere which we obviously don't want.
Same for the TSA. If the TSA disappeared overnight, we’d just get on airplanes and fly to our destinations like we did before they came around. We have long lines not because there are fewer agents, but because the law says an agent must process you and there are few agents.
Obviously, regulations can cause problems or have significant issues, so we should continually modify them as necessary, to the best of our ability. This includes removing them if they aren't beneficial, or creating new ones.
Same with TSA. While they aren't perfect, we don't have bimonthly hijackings like we did 40-50 years ago.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/atlanta-tsa-offic...
[1] - https://www.wired.com/2013/06/love-and-terror-in-the-golden-...
And very few after that (two in the 1980s, with a couple attempts in the 1989s and 1990s) because of the first round of airport security rules adopted immediately in the wake of those and the tightening permanently applied during the 1990 Gulf Crisis.
> The TSA doesn't deserve all the credit there as other post-9/11 security changes were implemented at the same time, but you can't just hand wave away their role in that unprecedented streak of safety.
It's not significantly different that the period before 9/11, so it's not clear they the TSA and other post-9/11 actions deserve any credit, and calling it an unprecedented streak of safety is hyperbolic.
>It's not significantly different that the period before 9/11, so it's not clear they the TSA and other post-9/11 actions deserve any credit, and calling it an unprecedented streak of safety is hyperbolic.
First off, you can't just pretend like 9/11 doesn't count in pre-TSA security stats. Four planes were hijacked within an hour of each other on 9/11 and zero have been hijacked in the last 17+ years? Those rates seem significantly different to me. Also can you find any stretch of US history in which commercial airliners have flown close to as many miles as they have over the last 17+ years in which there wasn't a hijacking? Unprecedented seems like a perfectly fine word to describe that streak.
Prior to 9/11, there were 14 years with no US hijackings (failed attempts are a different story) and 27 with no deaths on a commercial aircraft due to a hijacking. 17 years with neither hijackings nor hijacking related deaths is not a clear improvement that calls for credit anywhere. Since the 1980s, hijacking events have been so rare that it would take many decades under a give policy regime before and after a policy change before you couls have even remote statistical confidence that my quiet period
Really, since at least the 1980s, hijacking is so rare that it would take an extraordinarily long time to have even remote confidence that there was an increase in safety, much less of assigning a specific cause to it.
And, on assigning cause, if there was a reduction in hijackings post-9/11, well, there's a pretty good reason to think that al-Qaeda and the passengers of Flight 93 jointly might be responsible without any government policy as an intermediate cause.
Hijacking became something passengers would no longer be likely to accept as a “cooperate and noone gets hurt” event, which rendered it pointless as almost anyone has ever used it (even as al-Qaeda used it on 9/11, which while it doesn't factually fit that model clearly required for effect that people believed that it did.)
I have an anti-tiger rock to sell you.
Unless you'd like to see what Flint Michigan but Worse might look like on a more national scale.