Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 410
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...Page 12 of 33    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)
Is anyone else starting to worry that the spill is starting to fall off the radar? I mean, I understand the news cycle, the fact that new issues and events are happening all the time but I am concerned that once the light starts to dim, there will be less motivation by BP et. al. to put forward the utmost effort to deal with this.
 lateā„¢
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 411
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/25/2010 8:22:52 AM
Is anyone else starting to worry that the spill is starting to fall off the radar?

I did notice that the Afghanistan issue is back at center stage in mainstream media outlets.

I suppose that the public, by proxy of the journal-tainment industry; can only consume one story at a time. By design (politi-corporate) or from the concern of selling more Tide to a soundbite demographic, either way, fuckin' parasites the lot of them...
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 412
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/25/2010 9:55:55 AM
"If I buy 100 shares of BP, I shouldn't be on the hook for my entire livelihood,"

I concur, BUT you are at the risk of the market for their errors. If they screw up, end up in bankruptcy and your investment goes to zero based on their actions, it's your lose.

Further I think the problem is while BP "SAYS" they will be responsible, there is no proof, standard or contract that exists that lays out what that responsibility will be, or how limited it MAY become. While you may say the victims have recourse through the courts, that is a misnomer, you have recourse ONLY if you can afford it. Ask anybody who sued someone, when you can no longer afford atorney's to answer an endless parade of motions, delays and other legal manuevers, you no longer will have a case.

In this case absolutely the attorneys will stay, they smell blood and will want their "piece"of the spoils. But instead of victims receiving a fair settlement, lawyers will carve out 33 to 40% of the settlement, for their "fees"!!

Getting back to your original post though, you should be responsible for the total of your investment, no more. BP however should be held to a much higher standard. Just as you if you drove a car impaired and killed someone, would be responsible for criminal and civil penalties. BP drove the well(car), impaired(lack of safety standards) and killed someone(11 rig workers) and should be responsible to clean up the mess, and then face prosecution for those deaths.

As for those mentioning lack of coverage, remember 2 things. First the viewers become less interested(vast majority of americans) they would rather hear about other things than the same things over and over. Think Afgan war, it largely disappeared until the current military flap. This from the longest running war in american history, where our boys die everyday. Americans would rather see "dance your azz off", "Lost" or "American Idol" than the news.

Second, the attention span our newspeople have, is as long as a gnat's. Their all about the ratings, the advertisers. Yeah more liberal stations like MSNBC may cover it, but FOX would rather see it fade to black and let things get back to business as usual. In fact watching MSNBC today, their talking about Diana's sons, more than the spill, at the moment. They are more interested in the FINREG bill. The spill is being discussed ONLY in regaurd to the potential Hurricane develpoing in the Carribean.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 413
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/25/2010 3:40:20 PM

wvwaterfall --- Are you an environmental activist or speaker? Are there any places online your articles are published? I'd like to read them.


My 'activism' has been focused on supporting sustainability concepts, which
emphasize the interdependence of economic, social, and environmental benefits,
goals, and priorities. In that realm, I have done a fair amount of public speaking
over the years, but my published writings have been quite occasional and are not
gathered together in any one place.

I'd be glad to share what I have if you'd like to contact me privately.

As to news coverage of the spill, I'm sure any new developments will be front and
center, and that we'll see coverage of the impacts and recovery in the years to
come. But it's true that in the media world today's new news is tomorrow's old
news, and they're as competitive as any other business, always seeking the latest
scoop to beat the competition.

Dave
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 414
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/25/2010 4:11:20 PM
Whales are the latest "canaries in the coal mine" of the human experience of toxin distribution for the world. I remember when rivers, airsheds, and particularly oceans were infinite sinks for our sins. Now the buildup of those toxins in Whales are threatening their species, perhaps the most intelligent of mammals on earth. (They don't do the plethora of stupid human tricks that we do.)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100624/ap_on_sc/whaling

The Gulf is not infinite in it's ability to absorb and correct our negligence and greed. Heard a piece on NPR this morning about locals doing "scientific fishing" to bypass laws intent on keeping contaminated seafood from consumers, much like the "scientific whaling" of Japan and Norway. If we are what we eat, then we're dead meat..Timbuk 3..early 80s song. We live on a finite planet, with finite resources, at the grace of billions of years of evolution, unless you were created of course, and our numbers and voracious appetites are hitting head on, the limits of sustainability. New studies also show that pollutants are making people dumber and dumberer, which fits nicely into the plan and Faux News.

PS..Thanks for what you do Dave.
Denny
 Island home
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 415
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/25/2010 6:05:26 PM

No, don't relax, but don't give up either.

I agree
Midway between relaxed and an all out panic attack is where we are most effective.
My bad!

If we survive, and I am very optimistic that we shall, it will be another learning experience.
Mankind must constantly work on evolving the systems he/she uses to regulate them selves
 _Icon_
Joined: 5/18/2008
Msg: 416
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/25/2010 6:41:26 PM
I'm going to say something that might sound offensive to some people.

There are too many of us. We are a species in overshoot. We have got to control our population.

If we don't do it ourselves, there might be a fairly traumatic die-off. Combine a large scale pandemic with wide spread poverty and throw in a little civil unrest for seasoning and its possible that great numbers could die. Add as many events as you want to my imaginary scenario, nuke strike, natural disaster, terrorism, a little anthrax in the water sytems, power grid failure, rolling black outs, etc.

That's what happens in the wild when a species goes into over shoot, they will die off until the environment can support the population.

I don't know how, I don't know when, but we have got to start thinking about how many of us there are and how many resources we consume. This particular event in the Gulf is symbolic of our dependence on oil and our consumerist culture. We NEED new technology. It's not going to invent itself. I'm tired of people saying "they'll come up with something." Who's they? I call that "Star Trek thinking." Do these people think Star Trek is real?

If we could call another project like the Manhattan Project to come up with an energy source instead of a weapon, would it be successful?



Island Home, thanks for the concern, I'm not panicked, In fact I'm quite resigned.
 That Handy Man
Joined: 11/23/2008
Msg: 417
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/25/2010 8:50:23 PM
^^^Let the fools go on about politics and economics!

I have a bad feeling about this! In fact, it has cost me considerable sleep!

I do, fear, it may be a possible trigger for an extinction event! The Earths climate is a VERY delicate machine, and a change of a couple of degrees can (VERY QUICKLY) trigger another ice age! The change happens so rapidly, that Mammoths have been found "flash frozen) with food still in their mouths!
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 418
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/25/2010 9:02:00 PM
I do, fear, it may be a possible trigger for an extinction event! The Earths climate is a VERY delicate machine, and a change of a couple of degrees can (VERY QUICKLY) trigger another ice age! The change happens so rapidly, that Mammoths have been found "flash frozen) with food still in their mouths!


I'm guessing you watched The Day After Tomorrow.

It wasn't a documentary. Air from the mesosphere does not and cannot be dragged to the surface and remain cold. That would defy the basic laws of physics. Nor can hurricane shaped "superstorms" form over land.

Yes, ice ages have been theorized to occur in this fashion. But the change was over decades and millennia. Not days.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 419
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/25/2010 9:44:12 PM
Now that's just bad science.


The earth is not coming to an end. Plant and animal species are almost certainly going extinct at a lesser rate today than they were in the past. That's certainly true in developed nations. The human race is in a biologically "better" place today than at any point in world history. There is absolutely no evidence what-so-ever to justify the apocalyptic concerns that have been posted on this and other pages.

This of course doesn't mean we should relax in our efforts to preserve nature. But we must not subject ourselves to scare tactics. Those are for the news channels. We're better than that. I hope.

The earth has plenty of capacity to support many more humans. Many more. But that shouldn't even be a concern. Why? Because the evidence clearly shows that when societies grow economically, they virtually stop growing in terms of population. Developed Western and Asian nations show very little (and often negative) population growth. Undeveloped and developing nations are the ones growing at a high rate. So, really, if you want to learn how to make it so we have fewer human residents on this planet, you shouldn't study civics; you should study economics.

Invest in the third world and population growth will atrophy.


Many nations appear to have "growing" populations when in fact their domestic population sizes are static. They just have growing immigrant populations (nothing wrong with that), particularly from less developed nations. Europe is becoming increasingly Arabic (Eurabia) and North America is becoming increasingly Latino. Again, nothing "wrong" with that in my opinion (I know a lot of people here like to negatively judge posters who have differing opinions).






Why am I posting this? Because I think our efforts in fixing the problems that plague us today are wasted when we focus on things that aren't real or aren't long-term problems. Global population growth won't be a problem after market-based economic policies are spread to the rest of the world and having children becomes a luxury rather than a necessity for the majority of the human race. When people have the option to have children (or rather, to not have them), they tend to have fewer of them. One or two per couple. This is empirical fact.




http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1998/es202/archive/gt1f.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_decline.png
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/107/282656587_87d1018746.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR-IQwcYSSM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 420
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/25/2010 11:40:05 PM
dej


The idea of investors investing their entire fortunes into an undertaking just by buying a few shares is absurd.

The idea of owners being responsible for that which they do is absurd?

I see no fundamental difference between a profit limit and a liability limit on business owners. They are the same idea operating in different directions.

I believe the owners of a company have full claim on every penny of their earnings. Likewise, I believe the owners of a company have full responsibility for the damages their company imposes on other persons or property.





Any kind of plan that would mean that would mean that there is not "I'm investing 1,000", because you are inherently investing everything you have, because you are liable to lose everything you have.

Being liable is not the same as investing. You are not investing everything you have. You are simply liable for the damages you may (but likely won't) cause to others by virtue of the fact of owning the legal entity that causes the damages.





This means no investments.

This is matter-of-factly not true. The vast majority of merchants, at least in the United States, sign full personal liability statements with their credit card merchant account ISO/bank. I'm one of them. I signed one of those years ago and am still operating under de facto full personal liability even though I own a legal LLC. Full liability for the credit cards that I charge - which make up the vast majority of my sales - has not stopped me from doing business one bit. And it hasn't stopped the majority of merchants from doing business either.


...these are the things you learn by getting your hands dirty, not in academia...






If I buy 100 shares of BP, I shouldn't be on the hook for my entire livelihood, annual salary, and retirement savings if they screw up.

First of all, you've ignored the fact that every other stockholder's personal livelihoods are at stake too. Thus you have an enormous buffer against your personal assets because their personal assets would be just as liable as yours.

Let's do some math:


BP's Current Market Cap: 85 Billion USD
BP's Current Assets Value: ~85 Billion USD
BP's Current Outstanding Stares: 3.13Bn

This would mean BP would have to engage in an activity that results in a loss greater than 85 billion USD before you lost a single penny above your initial investment. Do you have any idea how unlikely that is? Extremely. A 1billion dollar lawsuit makes headlines. But, let's do a worst case senario. Let's say this Gulf accident results in 200 Billion USD worth of damages (costs of clean up, costs of remaining damages, costs of economic damages to local businesses) - a high estimate:

200bn (loss) - 85bn (book value) = 115bn (remaining damages)

100 (your shares)/3.13bn (total shares) = a .00000319% position on the company (thus the % amount of remaining losses you are liable for)

.0000000319 x 115,000,000,000 = 3,674

In this extremely unlikely, hugely catastrophic scenario where a company like BP causes $200 billion in damages, a 100 share position on the company would only result in a $3,500 personal loss.

How would this work in the real world? Risks would be priced into stocks, PE ratios would almost certainly be lower across the board (resulting in more liquidity for more companies....more smaller businesses), and when a company has a huge loss, its stock price would plummet even more than it does currently, giving an added incentive for businesses to avert risk. This would be because damages take time to be awarded and thus the personal risk (if any) would be transfered in a trade making the expected personal losses priced into the shares. And lastly, because extracting damages from many small shareholders is much more difficult than extracting damages from a few large shareholders, you would almost certainly be safe in the real world with a 100-share position. You might take a hit on your credit rating, though, if you didn't pay up.

Instead of the victims "paying" for the damages a company imposes, the company pays for them, thus giving more of an incentive to not cause damages. This promotes a more risk- aware investment arena. And no, it does not stop business and investment. Sole proprietors and the vast majority of small corporations, LLCs, etc who accept credit/debit cards operate under unlimited personal liability. This is empirical fact. Unlimited liability doesn't stop investment. It merely takes away the veil that investors in big companies get to get away with: the protection of the state.



I will say that introducing unlimited liability in the United States is A) impossible for the foreseeable future and B) would result in immediate disaster because large corporations/investors would simply move their capital to other states who do offer protection in the form of limited liability.
 themadfiddler
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 421
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/26/2010 2:31:27 AM
On a slightly different note...

When the hurricanes hit (and they will) the dome comes off... back to 2 million gal. a day...

Meanwhile, hundreds of dolphins already dead, countless sea birds, mammals, fish...unthinkable disturbance to the microscopic food chain...

5 of 7 of the world's species of sea turtles spawn in the Gulf...

1 of 2 of the bluefin tuna...

This was just one news report... any casual search of a zoological nature should pick a much rosier picture.

British PM Cameron says BP shouldn't be destroyed and should be allowed to remain vital...

I say make an example of them...draw and quarter them and take their remains to the four Kingdoms of England as a reminder to what should befall a corporation that puts its executives interest above the world, the community, its continued survival and its shareholders.

Whatever's left should be made into cat food.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 422
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/26/2010 10:00:23 AM

This would mean BP would have to engage in an activity that results in a loss greater than 85 billion USD before you lost a single penny above your initial investment. Do you have any idea how unlikely that is? Extremely. A 1billion dollar lawsuit makes headlines. But, let's do a worst case senario. Let's say this Gulf accident results in 200 Billion USD worth of damages (costs of clean up, costs of remaining damages, costs of economic damages to local businesses) - a high estimate:


Yes, you are right. But the entire idea of the corporation is to separate out the business side from the personal side. What happens with stocks that have negative EPS? Sure BP looks safe, but what about investments in startup capital? This is where I'm saying things will be hurt.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 423
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/26/2010 12:26:19 PM
dej


But the entire idea of the corporation is to separate out the business side from the personal side

I know what the so-called reasons are. I just see no reason how separating liability from responsible parties could be beneficial.


Trademark and accounting entity separations are very useful. Allowing multiple investors to collectively "own" things and "brand" products and activities under a legal entity is extremely convenient. But legally shielding those investors from the costs they may impose does not lead to better outcomes in my opinion.

It promotes malinvestment in the economy. It discourages businesses from operating in low risk, low profit industries (by artificially making said industries less profitable) and encourages more companies to operate in high risk, low profit industries than what the market would naturally bear (by making these industries artificially more profitable).






What happens with stocks that have negative EPS

Exactly what happens currently. Management either taps into the company's reserves or it secures a loan from another entity.

I misspoke earlier. BP's investors' personal property wouldn't be at risk until the company filed for bankruptcy. If management can keep the company capitalized, then there's no need for investors to pay up.

I will add \that before any laws eliminating limited liability were passed, I would like to see corporate reform. I would like to see each share of a company grant a vote to its shareholder and an internet-based voting arena to replace stockholder meetings and boards of directors and actually allow all shareholders to vote. This new system would allow shareholders to vote on CEOs who themselves apply with "voting packages" that specify what the potential CEO is willing to allow the shareholders to vote on regarding the running of the company. Some CEO applicants would allow shareholders to vote on many things (dividends, who fills other executive positions, the products/areas the company introduces/expands into, etc) and others would prefer a more traditional style of management. It would be up to all of the shareholders to vote on how they want to manage their company, not just the majority owners and the board of directors.

This internet interface could easily be provided by government.

I believe this would more accurately reflect a system that would naturally arise and lead to far better outcomes than our current system. Our current system leaves the vast majority of shareholders far removed from the decision-making process of that which they own.





what about investments in startup capital? This is where I'm saying things will be hurt.

As I explained in my previous post, the vast majority of startups already operate under full personal liability because they accept credit and debit cards.

We'd probably see an increase in insurance that hedges investors against damages caused by rogue employees (like ones who go postal, etc). But this wouldn't be required in a free market. So investors in small startups who feel their risks of causing extraordinary damages are low, they can skip purchasing this insurance. Thus they would be unaffected.

All it would do would price risks into investment. Investors are still greedy... thus they still want to invest. They just would have to consider their personal property when deciding the the risks their investment may impose on other people's personal property.

Limited liability is one of the things that lead to the BP spill. Legally separating risks from risk takers is a violation of the market. These kinds of contracts can occur voluntarily - "I will sell you a product if you promise not to sue me for my personal property if it damages you beyond the book value of my company" - but outright legal separation without the consent of consumers distorts the market.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 424
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/26/2010 1:06:29 PM
CountIbli



BP wanted to drill in 500 feet of water, and the state of Louisiana okayed it. Then the federal government stepped in and made them drill at an unprecedented 5000 feet instead. So it's no surprise that everything went wrong because nobody has experience with this kind of thing. Thank you Big Brother for creating another huge mess.


Why is no one else addressing this?


How can this disaster possibly be blamed on the free market? It is a blatant, crushing failure of central government regulation of the economy. There were no market forces at work here. Those forces would have given someone an incentive to make sure the Gulf was protected. Instead, we had bureaucrats working with special interests to dictate how things would be.


The SYSTEM needs to be changed to a more free market, less government-controlled one if we want meaningful improvement. Vilifying individual people and companies is a distraction from the real problem: the system that provides incentivizes businesses to partner with the state and/or use state land to form a coalition against the rest of us.

Humans act according to incentives, not according to how we want them to act or how we think they should act.
 _Icon_
Joined: 5/18/2008
Msg: 425
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/26/2010 2:21:05 PM
You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out~

Viva Italia, I love me some good activism, too.

I'm going to get dirty soon, I dont know how much impact one person can make but it sure beats sitting here on my butt moping about Armegeddon, doesnt it? I'm going to focus on wildlife rescue and let the smart guys figure out the politics and economics.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 426
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/26/2010 2:46:24 PM


I didn't say that; however, I'd wager that at least 99.9% of the businesses in this country have at the least registered themselves as either an LLC or S-Corp. It's the foundation of the free market we have in the United States.


Actually, it would be interesting to know how many businesses are set up like corporations and how many are sole proprietorships or partnerships.



Separating business from the person allows for joint ownership in business and clarity in how taxes are calculated. If I buy 100 shares of BP, I shouldn't be on the hook for my entire livelihood, annual salary, and retirement savings if they screw up. That is a critical part of maintaining the market. It means I'm invested for the share that I bought in for. I'm liable to lose all 100 of those shares, but not my house.


Limited liability is critical to maintaining corporate non-responsibility. IMO, if you own 1% of BP stocks then you should be liable for 1% of the damages.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 427
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/26/2010 2:55:30 PM


The implications of this spill are huge
One thing I haven't seen discussed is the effect that a carpet of oil on such a large area of ocean will have , in that it will stop the water evaporating.
How will this effect the weather?


Hard to say for sure, but I would think with less evaporation there will be less water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas, so we should see some global cooling from this.

On the flip side the black oil will brobably absorb light better than the water and then heat up easier (just like black cars in the sunshine are hotter than oter color cars). When this heat is released it will warm the atmosphere.

On the third side oil evaporates too (but not nearly as much as water) and I have no idea how much of a greenhouse gas oil vapor is.



Just as well climate change doesnt exist, or so Ive been told


If Al Gore and the other AGW hystericists are right then it won't matter because only human produced CO2 matters.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 428
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/26/2010 3:00:40 PM


It will take a lot more than the gulf disaster for the oceans to die, but there are plenty of signs our oceans are certainly not well. Increased acidity threatening shellfish, bits of plastic threatening most everything else, overfishing, a wide range of toxins, etc...


I know this is a crazy idea, but might the oil spill have some positive effects. Could all this oil reduce the acidity of the oceans (obviously going too far in the opposite direction isn't good either)? The oil spill will also prevent people from fishing in the area so this will alleviate the over-fishing problem.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 430
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/26/2010 3:08:01 PM
Can anyone justify the simultaneous despair for the fish and other marine wildlife in the Gulf and the despair for the fishermen for me?

I don't understand it. "Poor fish. The oil is hurting them... Poor fishermen who can't kill the fish because of the oil."


It.... makes no sense to me. How can one care about the livelihoods of fish if he/she wants fishermen to kill them?
 _Icon_
Joined: 5/18/2008
Msg: 431
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/26/2010 3:11:30 PM
It's an industy that is the backbone of a great portion of this region.

Without fish there are no fisherman. It's completely wiped out an entire culture/economy that depends on the Gulf for sustenance. Millions and millions of people are affected.

It's not just fish involved, there are aquatic birds, tortoises, marine mammals, so many species I can't list them all. Some will become extinct because of this disaster.


If you're a vegetarian/vegan, then I really can't explain anything to you.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 432
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/26/2010 3:15:48 PM
Hey Paul,

You are absolutely right about the majority of shareholders having no say in how their company is managed. What do you think of my proposed solution above?



I could be wrong, but I think Count only thinks shareholder assets would be liable after the company's assets are exhausted. That's how it would work in the real world, I think.


As for profits, I think my solution would have the real-world effect of increasing dividends. Thats what our stock market used to be based on. A company generated profits and distributed them to shareholders. I'm pretty sure before 1980, no company on the S&P 500 paid less than a 2% dividend. Today, only a tiny minority do.


The tax code and legal loopholes have converted our stock market from a investment arena into a speculation powder keg.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 433
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/26/2010 3:22:00 PM
Iconoclast

Ahh, I see. So it is a despair for the damage to a commodity that locals depend on, not a despair for the free agency of the animals themselves?

That makes sense. Didn't think about it that way.

And what does my being/not being a vegan have to do with your ability to explain something to me?
 _Icon_
Joined: 5/18/2008
Msg: 434
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/26/2010 3:27:45 PM
Ahh, I see. So it is a despair for the damage to a commodity that locals depend on, not a despair for the free agency of the animals themselves?

That makes sense. Didn't think about it that way.


Fish are food, flamingos are not.


And what does my being/not being a vegan have to do with your ability to explain something to me?


I try to avoid conversations with people who see such things in black and white. Im all about the grey in between.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 435
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/26/2010 3:34:23 PM


Does that mean that a 1% shareholder also gets 1% of the profits? How can a person who has absoluetly no say whatsoever in HOW the company is run have such a potentially horrendous liability? I understand that you are trying to tie stock ownership to potential liability in hopes that that stock owners would pressure the ones who run the company to do things correctly. I agree with the sentiment, but you couldn't be more wrong.


A 1% shareholder should get 1% of the profits. Whether that's how it really works, I don't know. Trying to run a company through direct democracy would be a disaster but every shareholder should get voting rights (perhaps like some kind of representative democracy). But this mess all results from publically traded companies anyway.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >