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
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 252
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...Page 7 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)
Just as a matter practicality, if we removed the BAR - deregulated - and allowed anyone to practice law who wanted to - freedom - the existing establishment of lawyers would have far less of a stranglehold on our country. The BAR associated was not established because there was a public uproar. It wasn't demanded by the people. It was pushed by the lawyers to protect their own interests and to institutionalize command and control authority over the industry.



Freedom is practical. Tyranny is not.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 253
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/11/2010 4:44:44 PM
The subject of law is what separates us from the other beast who farted themselves, or devoured the living resources/life support system into extinction. The concept of the commons, the air we breathe, the water we drink, the soil that sustains us over generations, is a recent construct. Becoming a lawyer in a land of evil lawyers, was a path chosen by many I have known, in their quest to actually do law in the context of the commons and the common good. Merely because 90% of them have sold out does not mean that the dedicated few should be thrown into the oil leak or the sharks. I was recently blessed to spend a weekend with people with law degrees who are intent on using their skills, luck of the draw, and passions to try to save us from our stupid human tricks, sellout skills and deception. Yes, they are small in number relative to the greedheads who are drawn to that trade or politics, but they make up for that segment, by being people of principle, doing what they can for their kids and communities, doing pro-bono up the whazoo-zo, and sticking to the morality they were raised within.

I love lawyer jokes as much as most lawyers do, but there is a vast divide between the good ones and the ones who now control much of the public debate and government. The good ones are multiplying while the lawstitutes are being exposed for what they are.
 Island home
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 254
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/11/2010 7:11:07 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If there is to be a revolution
My hope is it is one of knowledge and understanding
Rather than the same old masses being lead by the blind, fearful and greedy
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 256
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/12/2010 5:21:57 AM
I understand what your saying but letting this spill continue without allowing the global scientific community to seal it by now~ obviously has its own political agenda.
We are all venting our frustrations.
 Island home
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 257
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/12/2010 5:46:59 AM
I'm wondering what sort of storage capacity is available if the spill was to be sucked up at the surface roughly in the vicinity of the spill and then processing the water content out on shore at a later date.
In fact I' ve often wondered why such capability hasnt been demanded

Edit
Wouldnt expect this to be 100% effective
But surely better than full saturation
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 258
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/12/2010 6:08:10 AM

In fact I' ve often wondered why such capability hasnt been demanded

They have just approved the use of a vacuum / centrifuge clean-up machines and I would assume they bring the machines to the oil and process on the spot thus not need to transport back to a treatment facility.

Down side of this is you will probably not see them until August.



Kevin Costner Announces That BP Will Use His Oil-Cleanup Machines
by Cameron Scott, 06/11/10

kevin costner, ocean therapy solutions, bp, gulf, oil spill, cleanup, centrifuge, vacuum, technology

Although Costner used his charm to soften the blow — assuring the hearing that he wasn’t there because he’d “heard a voice in a cornfield” — he indicated that the pumps could have been manufactured and deployed much sooner if the industry weren’t loath to invest in cleanup technology. He also said that regulators trapped his company, Ocean Therapy Solutions, in a “Catch-22″ situation, forbidding unapproved machinery to be used on actual oil spills while requiring testing in real spills before granting approval.

In terms of how much of the spill the machines could actually filter, Ocean Therapy Solutions says that 32 of them could clean six million gallons of water a day. Costner has invested more than $20 million of his personal fortune in the technology

http://inhabitat.com/2010/06/11/kevin-costner-announces-that-bp-will-use-his-oil-cleanup-machines/
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 260
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/12/2010 7:07:56 AM
First off yes annasthasia your right, Atlantis was set up in EXACTLY the way Horizon was set up. (Horizon was the rig that blew up) So the potential for a sequel is very real while we allow(our government) Atlantis to keep pumping with out checking what safety features were omitted in it's construction.

One last note on the "lawyers" I applaud all those who choose that profession, and do it wisely, as those earthpuppy has met. Sorry the ones I have known in my life(both divorce, criminal and corporate) were basically immoral greedy pigs. They are the ones who look at new laws designed to protect us, and try to figure out how to bend them. They are all about the MONEY. Look now at our current situation in the gulf(BP spill).

We cannot find enough judges(former lawyers) that wouldn't have to either recuse themselves for oil money taken, oil as a client, oil money as politico contributor to their campaign. Finally they(lawyers) are quick to jump the gravy train by starting already 200 lawsuits against BP for damages. Now that will grow I'm sure into the thousands, but some of these lawyers are from California and Oklahoma, other far away states. Not to mention the battery of lawyers BP will hire.

They will go on to suck up somewhere between 25 and 40% of any money paid!! Blood sucking, lawyers should die! Gawd it gets me crazy. Why are they worth 40%? How much money is enough? So 5 years of work mostly done by your assistants and secretaries, will be worth millions maybe nearly billions, for a hand full of lawyers.

"Humans are a stupid species sometimes..."

Yeah or they'd kill all the lawyers!

On a seperate note there is a company who has had great success seperating oil from water. Problem is, BP was overwhelmed with offers that could be used for cleanup, plus some ideas were inane. The Iowa senator I think who proposes beer ingredients to be put in the gulf to rid it of oil? hahaha Again though, it took BP 30 days to look at ANY of these things, they thought(arrogantly) that they would have it fixed. I'll look for that company name and post it, saw it yesterday.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 261
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/12/2010 7:58:19 AM

They will go on to suck up somewhere between 25 and 40% of any money paid!! Blood sucking, lawyers should die! Gawd it gets me crazy. Why are they worth 40%?





Because of the BAR association. It has turned the lawyers into a de facto cartel. Just as a matter practicality, if we removed the BAR - deregulated - and allowed anyone to practice law who wanted to - freedom - the existing establishment of lawyers would have far less of a stranglehold on our country. The BAR association was not established because there was a public uproar. It wasn't demanded by the people. It was pushed by the lawyers to protect their own interests and to institutionalize command and control authority over the industry.



Tyranny is not practical. Freedom is.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 263
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/12/2010 8:30:40 AM
I wonder what a tire swing designed by the government would look like.


Would probably cost $10,000, wouldn't swing, be upside down, have 10x more rope than necessary, be required to have a union official present, and would need a licence to operate.
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 264
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/12/2010 9:30:01 AM
Can't seem to find the interview from 6/11 with a company who had a great oil seperator technology. Although found a company from an interview 6/07/10 EVTN and the voraxial seperator.

Both companies have had communications from BP, however that's ALL they've had.

What does that mean? Means they don't want to spend the money! Since both technologies, while limited in their technology, in terms of size, would be anywhere from 4 times more effective to 10 times more effective, than what is presently being used. This spill is massive, they have dealt with smaller spills.(both companies)

BP would rather dump chemicals that will kill anything, not neccessarily more ecologically effective. They can keep the chemicals more cheaply and disperse them easier, ergo more cost effectively(cheaper, the british baztards) than these methods.

Again, if should be apparent, if you are buying your gas at a BP gas station, YOU ARE UNAMERICAN!!!!

I also love the way that 2 faced b1tch Palin, is knocking Obama. What happened to standing on the stage screaming "Drill baby, drill" she never once mentioned safety, only drilling. Oh that's right we should have "implied" she meant that. She lived in the oil companies pockets for years, but NOW she's against random drilling, or deep water.

I guess(seeing her) that selective memory is possible and a reality. What about fat fuk, Rush, where's he in all this, that tub of lard, anti american SOB! When will the american people learn?

As for the brits, and our country picking on BP. Tough, have them drill their sh1t in your backyard. I readily admit the pirates Bush and Cheney made it possible for them to get over, with a look away by MMS, and a packed board.

You know what we need, a new "sporting event"!!!! A 3K swim in the worst part of the gulf with compulsory attendance by Bush, Cheney, all members of MMS past and present, ALL BP executives and board members past and present. Televise the sucker and let Exxon sponsor it!(not their a whole lot better) Would love the closeups of the guys spitting out oil as they swum.

BOYCOTT BP, further start sitting outside their stations with signs that say "shame on you if you buy your gas here"!!!!!

We need to start lighting a fire under some azzes, to get action.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 265
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/12/2010 9:54:03 AM
If what these companies were offering were viable solutions, BP would be eager to use them.

BP is loosing billions of dollars both in cleanup costs and in lost reputation as this leak continues. And that doesn't count what they've lost in terms of value on the stock exchanges. They would love to be able to spend money on a viable solution that cleans the mess up.

Just because an option they reject costs several hundred million or even a few billion to deploy doesn't mean they've rejected it because "they don't want to spend". They would PROFIT if they could spend a billion on a brilliant technique to clean this mess up. They would buy and deploy it in a heartbeat. Why? Because they're losing much more than that having the leak carry on like it is.

BP would have to behave selflessly and irrationally not to use such an option. They're too greedy not to.

Just because some businessmen are going on national TV to try to sell their "solution" doesn't make it a viable option. CNN, MSNBC, EVTN are not engineering journals. They are entertainment centers.



**EDIT**
Sh*t, if such a realistic, viable solution were available and BP really were rejecting it, it could pay EXXON to spend a billion to buy and deploy it. Exxon could win the hearts and minds of an entire nation by coming to the rescue and cleaning the mess. They would look extremely responsible - possibly enough to make up for their valdez spill - while simultaneousness making one of their largest competitors look horrible.

The value of mindshare in the public is enormous. Just ask Apple, Nike, Google.

Unfortunately such a solution doesn't exist. Or at least it's not known to exist. And if one does come up, you can bet BP will be the first to deploy it. They stand to most to gain from using it.




...that is unless the government pays for this mess. If we fail in our capacity as citizens to hold BP accountable for the costs of their accident. BP can't avoid their lost reputation. But they can avoid the direct costs of this accident if they are able to successfully navigate the legal and regulatory code to get out of having to pay.
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 266
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/12/2010 11:25:16 AM
Sorry ubiquitous, you obviously never functioned in a corporate environment.

Everybody plays CYA(impossible to some degree here) and trying to take credit or give discredit for things that corporations use or deploy.

In this case, first we have to decide "who's in charge" from a corporate standpoint, operations, supply chain management, or crisis management for example. Then we have to weigh what is effective, and what is COST effective. Then a consensus on how we will spend the money, who gets credit, who gets blame, who gets a freakin raise out of it.

While the machine demonstrated is not effective due to limited amount of water it can process(given the size of the spill) and we don't know the cost per unit, the fact that it is available, and a limited number of units could be employed to see IF it is effective.

But in this kind of scenario, if they can only process, say 100,000 gallons a day(example only) and they can spread those chemicals over say 500,000 gallons a day for half the money, which do you think they will choose? Remember corporations act ONLY in their OWN self interest.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 268
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/12/2010 5:48:17 PM
mr.evil



In this case, first we have to decide "who's in charge" from a corporate standpoint, operations, supply chain management, or crisis management for example. Then we have to weigh what is effective, and what is COST effective. Then a consensus on how we will spend the money, who gets credit, who gets blame, who gets a freakin raise out of it.

You're exactly right. Cost/Benefit analysis needs to be done. Otherwise we are blind in making these decisions.





But in this kind of scenario, if they can only process, say 100,000 gallons a day(example only) and they can spread those chemicals over say 500,000 gallons a day for half the money, which do you think they will choose? Remember corporations act ONLY in their OWN self interest.

Very true. Here's the solution I propose:

Let's put a price on the chemical dispersant. BP is throwing it into the water, aren't they? It wasn't there before. And if this accident hand't occurred, it wouldn't be there. Thus, it's a cost BP is imposing on the rest of us. So we ought to rationally determine a price for each pound of disputant that's used - in-line with the costs we think it imposes on the us - and tax BP for it.

That way BP will be will be able to rationalize this market and determine if it really is more cost effective to use dispersant or these other options to clean up this mess. Right now, because there's no price mechanism in place, they're going with the option that costs the least amount of money. But that option imposes costs on us. They're offloading the external costs onto the taxpayer.

The problem is, GOVERNMENT owns these waters (ours and others). Governments do an absolutely AWFUL job of protecting our property. The most polluted land in the world is government owned.

I mean, hell, they CAPPED the liability for these companies! What that does is legally allows these companies to offload costs onto victims. LEGALLY. "If this company causes $1000 damage to your property, they only have to pay you $100." That is one of the worst, most anti-market things that can be done in an economy.

This is why I support private property. If the gulf were privately owned, there would be straightforward legal ramification for this entire mess. It would have given BP more of an incentive to use protective measures to begin with. And it would light a fire under their as*es to clean up the mess. But because the government is doing a shi*ty job imposing costs on our behalf, BP is able to get away with using the least expensive means to clean the mess.. not most cost-effective.

There's a difference.


But this isn't going to be a solution for this CURRENT problem. So.... I think the most effective action-step we can take regarding the current mess is to demand our representatives tax BP for every lb of dispersant they add into the water. It has be to a rational tax, based on an analysis of how much damage the dispersant will impose over time. It could very well be that dispersant is the best option to clean the majority of the mess.. and if we tax it too high then it could force BP to use a less effective option.

It's all about price. Prices allow you rationalize a market and make accurate decisions.








Krebby


Also, what contractual rights were signed between BP and Haliburton, and other companies, in terms of allowing other companies to cover whatever contracted services are held between BP and these other companies?

This is an extremely important issue and I don't think it's getting enough attention. Haliburton, Transocean, or someone else may be just as responsible as BP.






Companies are responsible for share-holder value and profitability, therefore, they will be very cautious to invest in ANY new clean-up ventures until it proves to be cost-effective.

This is absolutely true.

Thing is, the costs are already there. We can see them with our eyes. And the local businesses can see it in their bank accounts. The problem is, these are government waters. The property rights here are loose at best. There's no legal framework that can efficiently impose the costs onto the responsible parties. Thus, the costs are on the rest of us. BP is able to take advange of the fact that there is no market in the Gulf. It's government land.

That means it's not about who has the better legal case. Its who has the better lobbyists. Does anyone lobby on OUR behalf of OUR gulf? If it's Federal, then it's ours. I'm sure there's a local special interest group or two. But they can't compete with BP in the DC lobbying market. Thus, BP can get away with this sh*t.







But note that these cost-effective measures should have occurred BEFORE the spill occured, not after.

It's easy to say these things ex post facto. Easy to say after a tree falls your roof, "I should'a cut that sucker down." But for every time we can look back and point out, "we should'a been prepared" there are 1000 risks that never landed on the wrong side of the dice.

If we allocate resources into preventing every single possible risk, we won't have any resources left.


It all comes down to cost/benefit analysis. It's my belief that had these waters been owned by private individuals who leased the drilling rights to BP - and had the OIL industry not been able to lobby a government to enforce a liability cap on the victims - then BP would have been more precautious. Why? Because in an environment where the costs BP imposes on others' property can readily be imposed back onto them, it would PAY BP to avoid those costs.. cost-effectively.

Prices are just signals. They allow agents to rationalize the market.

But there is no price system in the Gulf. It's owned by the government, which means it's owned by us. But it's not CONTROLLED by us. It's controlled by lobbyists and special interests. Thus, government property - our property - can be easily taken advantage of by a BP, Exxon, or anyone with lobbying power.

You can't lobby someone to let you take excessive risks on his property. You have pay him for the privilege. But you can lobby government officials to let you take excessive risks on everyone else's land. And that's exactly what happened.

We can't kid ourselves. As long as these government controls over the economy exist, we're never going to get corporations out of them. A corporation's sole purpose is to create profit. It is immensely profitable for corporations to seize these controls over the economy. To write laws in their favor. To dominate their competitors. To keep natural resources on public land where they are artificially cheap. To cartelize themselves into an industry. And so on and so on. Thus, keeping them out of the regulatory agencies is like trying to keep bee's away from honey. It's going to be about as effective in the real world as keeping marijuana off the streets. The laws of economics trump the laws congress can pass and even the most strict policing efforts.

If huge profits can be made, they will be.


Create a government agency to act as a watchdog? Guess who that will fall to? That will only succeed in giving the illusion that the people really control the government.. something we suffer from so much today.

Proactively controlling the economy for the good is pushing on string.

Freedom works!
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 270
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/12/2010 9:04:25 PM
I heard someone joke that they should plug the hole with copies of Ayn Rand's works. It's starting to sound like it might be a good idea.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 273
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/12/2010 11:26:36 PM
Krebby


Unleashed free markets, unregulated free market activity might sound good, but it doesn't work in cases where information asymmetry is at play.

What do you mean by "doesn't work"?

Do you mean "produces less favorable results than command-and-control, top-down government intervention"? If so, I would ask you to produce some evidence that this is the case.

I know information asymmetry is a feature of real-world markets. But we can't simply presuppose that instituting a government agency and passing legislation increases information symmetry. And even if it does, that the costs don't outweigh the benefits. Or that while you may indeed make information more symmetrical, you haven't made power less symmetrical. Regulations almost always put a disproportionally heavy burden on the small company relative to the large multi-national who pushes for it.






Let's go ahead and operate on the basis of raw market forces in making kids' toys -- after a few kids have died because of lead poisoning, why then, parents will quit buying the toys. How many kids have to die before the toys are not sold?

There is very little evidence that a substantial number of children have died or even experienced significant health effects due to lead poisoning from lead in children's products. A kid can suck on a figurine covered in lead-based paint and will not consume enough lead to cause any measurable harm. The science just isn't there.

Moreover, the way our media reacts when it is discovered that a toy manufacturer uses any lead in any toy - regardless of the actual threat - goes to show how markets regulate themselves.


But sure, say we deregulate the toy industry and the result is 100 children die per year from lead poisoning. Does that mean we made the wrong choice? Hardly. There is enormous evidence that the sales of the toys saved far more than 100 children in poor families from starvation. And that by artificially increasing the the cost of manufacturing, you will starve children who otherwise would have not have died had their parents been "allowed" to make a living producing a product that by any objective measure is over 99.99% safe.... as determined by number of children using the product vs number of children harmed by using it. And if you include the lives saved by increasing wealth in poor families, these products are over 100% safe. They SAVE lives.

This is not unlike banning a medication that kills 100 people per year, but saves 10,000 that we talked about earlier.

You can't just point to someone you "save" and take credit. Bastiat's Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas laid this out over 150 years ago. You can't just look at the seen benefits. You HAVE to look at the unseen costs if you want to fully understand the results of choices like these. And the evidence is that the unseen costs of our government controls far outweighs the minuscule benefits they can be empirically shown to provide. The FDA alone has a death toll will soon exceed that of Mao's.





Even worse, the "externalities," the consequences of allowing bad production to occur, or production with high externalities, often hit innocent consumers.

First of all, it's not like government regulation prevents this from happening. Even though this Gulf leak is wrongfully being blamed on the free market, the entire situation is an enormous failure of government control. The part of the Gulf this occurred in is owned by the United States government. It is under the full regulation of the Department of the Interior and Energy. These are political entities, not private. There is a market for political power because controlling it is enormously profitable. And the actual evidence shows that the industry - BP, Exxon, Shell - dominate this political market and as such have been able to pass laws that allowed them to escape the market forces that would have forced them to be accountable to someone with an interest in preventing accidents like this from happening.

Second of all, a government doesn't need to proactively "regulate" an industry to limit violations against property, as is the case with externalities such as pollution. Cap and Trade type legislation - which is passive and is enforced reactively rather than active and enforced proactively - has been shown to be very effective. The courts enforces these and protect property rights in the air, water, etc, without the destructive command-and-control agencies that inevitably are captured by the industry and are used to cartelize the biggest players in it.





The agencies are already there.

I know. And look how good of a job they're doing.

"They were sold out to the lobbyists." You're absolutely right.





Hold them accountable for their lack of effectiveness; find out which agency bozos cavorted with lobbyists and stick their behinds in jail if they breached APA regulations or engaged in fraud; get the agencies to do what they supposed to, and we're good to go.

Krebby.....

Please, think about this. Please. You're an intelligent guy..

How is this any different from the war on drugs? Of prohibition? Do you not see that the laws of economics trump even the most well-meaning legislation and police efforts. That despite laws and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, that the officials the people elect can't stop a product that costs $20 per pound to produce and can be sold for $100,000 a pound off the streets?

Remember, this is pure description. I'm not saying what ought to be the case.

The ROI on lobbying is comparable to the ROI for drugs. A few million spent on lobbying can very easily produce legislation that returns billions. Hell, Wall Street got Trillions!
And what's more is that lobbying government is more "honest" in a way than selling drugs because it is by definition legal.

Politics doesn't exist within a vacuum. There is a market for the powers it exerts. And as we both know, agents in a market tend to sell to the highest bidders.

How is the diffuse general interest of busy moms and dads scattered around the nation, working from 9-5 every day, with very little time to dedicate to politics, supposed to compete with the highly organized, highly funded, highly committed special interest of a multinational corporation?


You say you like Ayn Rand's philosophy, but you criticize it for being ideal. I think without meaning to those who support government control are being the ideal ones. That they take for granted the idea that government officials act differently than anyone else. That they are somehow more accountable to "the people" than to special interests.

Over, and over and over again we see this is not the case. We see that state control creates oligopoly, makes small businesses far less competitive with large corporations (who have merged with the state), allows companies like Exxon and BP to get away with polluting public land, and so on.


I think if we reallocated these resources our bloated regulatory sector are consuming on a more robust, efficient court system - one where it doesn't take YEARS for even simple civil cases to be decided , one where judges and prosecutors were actually paid COMPETITIVE wages against the industry - we would have far better outcomes. We'd shed the system that allows giant corporations to dominate industries, we'd open up the markets to competition.. which always produces innovation, and we would have a more reliable system of holding people accountable for the costs they impose on others.

Do you see any merit in this?









I heard someone joke that they should plug the hole with copies of Ayn Rand's works. It's starting to sound like it might be a good idea.

Don't think it'll be the last problem her philosophy fixes ; )
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 275
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/13/2010 12:09:55 AM

but from the erroneous assumption that totally raw free market forces can somehow be accountable.




Hey! Waitaminute!

Oh, yeah, ....see: "Bhopal"
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 276
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/13/2010 12:13:46 AM
Still haven't changed your ways.

All you can do is claim I don't understand. You have never been able to put forth a rational argument to support why your ideas are any more legitimate than mine.

And I haven't abandoned anything. Every single post of mine in this thread conveys a single, consistent message. You're either lying about my position or do not understand it.




You, an understanding of Economics? Ha.

You couldn't even differentiate between a demanded good and an undemanded good in the Mexican space agency thread. It's obvious that I've read far more economic literature than you have and could school you on the subject, as I have in various threads.. Just because someone in a black robe handed you a piece in paper in an unrelated field during a voodoo ceremony doesn't mean you have more knowledge on the subject than anyone else. You actually have to put forth coherent ideas - arguments - to demonstrate an understanding of the topic. Something you have CONTINUALLY refused to do with me. When I back you into a corner with better ideas, better basis, and with evidence on my side, you retreat with ad hominem bigotry.

"Empirical evidence sucks when you're on the 'loser' side"

You are a pathetic creature. Both hypocritical and dishonest. If you don't want to engage in discussion with me, then ignore me. Don't quibble like a child. "I know what you don't know, Na na na naaa na!"

No mystery why the daughter doesn't call pawpaw too often, huh? He's a douchebag.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 278
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/13/2010 12:27:55 AM
Nope, not a rational argument. Those came before. But since you refused to be civil, I decided to expose fire with fire ; )
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 280
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/13/2010 12:51:49 AM
Oh suuuuuure she does ; )

A teenage girl calling her boring, egotistical dad every day? Let alone every week? Now that's funny.

You can't even lie well, let alone justify the self-refuting nature of your position.

And I bet she's a very nice girl. It's her dad I was picking on. Wasn't that obvious? Or did your ego get in the way again lol?



Anyways, I actually wanted to be cool with you. I tried to keep the discussion grounded and on topic. Ya'know, civil. But you, as always, refused to play nice. Again, without provocation, you started attacking me and not my ideas. I mean, even though you're fun to mess around with - like a tiger with a gazelle - you're about as intellectually stimulating as an eggplant. That's the type of interaction I prefer. So, I will say goodbye! I'm done with you. Off to more important, mentally-stimulating things. Ciao!




Don't let it get you down too much. At least she still remembers your birthday..
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 281
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/13/2010 1:01:39 AM
There are some, completely lacking in the perspective that comes from experience, that completely lack the ability to grasp the full meaning of a perspective. It's good that this isn't an all encompassing (for lack of a better term) attitude by the inexperienced, ...but, it's no surprise when it rears its ugly head and misses the point, ...completely.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 283
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/13/2010 1:23:39 AM
Ladies and gentleman, the word for today is:

Jejune

This is the biggest and most sturdy building-block in building a fascist-corporatist society.

But, those who cling to certain economic ideals conveniently ignore the fact that the people who first posited them, ...admit they were wrong, unless they forgot to do so before they died...

Back to Bhopal.

Corporate responsibility and such.

...it doesn't exist.

Read the news.
 Island home
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 284
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/13/2010 2:09:08 AM

Freedom works!


Freedom from consequences corrupts freedom of others

I have yet to see a legal system that regulates consequences well

The freedom is not the key
The law is not the key
The good combination is the key

Good law takes all interests (special and otherwise) into account
Then makes judgment (The tricky part)

I dont think the good fortune of owning an asset qualifies you in good judgment


Very true. Here's the solution I propose:

Let's put a price on the chemical dispersant. BP is throwing it into the water, aren't they? It wasn't there before. And if this accident hand't occurred, it wouldn't be there. Thus, it's a cost BP is imposing on the rest of us. So we ought to rationally determine a price for each pound of disputant that's used - in-line with the costs we think it imposes on the us - and tax BP for it.


Are you proposing this to be done by government or as a private citizen?
I'd like to see your rational in working out the price?
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 285
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/13/2010 4:14:35 AM
Island home


Freedom from consequences corrupts freedom of others

Can you be more specific? I don't understand what you mean.






Are you proposing this to be done by government or as a private citizen?
I'd like to see your rational in working out the price?

Yep, by the government. Despite the fact some posters have caricatured my position with emotionally charged words such as "totally raw" and "unleashed" with "no regulation" or "accountability" in an attempt to mock my ideas rather than engage them, I have always supported in a government that "regulates" the market by sternly punishing fraud, negligence, violence, violations against property rights (damages, theft, etc) and enforces contracts between consenting parties. Government intervention to hold parties accountable for costs they impose is a desirable part of the market, and most certainly constitutes government "regulation".

The government, in my opinion, has an obligation to impose all of the costs of this spill on BP and the other responsible parties. Why? Because that is consistent with my philosophy of property. This isn't BP's water. It's ours. They've imposed a cost on us. We ought to be compensated for it if we wish to preserve our property.. in this case is the Gulf.

I've made this position of mine very clear throughout this entire thread. Never once have I deviated from it as it has been suggested.


Now, as for rationally determining the price of this tax... I don't have the hubris to claim that expertise. That, in my opinion, is a job for our scientists. They know better than anyone else what kind of damages these dispersants will have. Once there's a good estimate of the damages, translate those environmental costs into terms of dollars (using local data) and slap that cost onto BP's use of these dispersants in the form of a tax. That will make BP pay for the costs they are imposing by using these dispersants and could very well force them to use a "cleaner" method to remove the oil. If it doesn't - if the dispersants are still the most cost-effecive solution for cleaning up the oil - then at least BP is paying for the additional costs. And warning signal - a price signal - will be sent out to Exxon, Shell, and the other oil companies. "You can't just use dispersants when you screw up. You're going to have to pay up if you try to offload costs onto the taxpayer." They'll see this signal and it will pay them to include it in their risk analysis. Accurate risk analysis is what these companies use when determining which pieces of safety equipment to buy and operate. The higher the costs of a screw up, the less likely a company will engage in the activity. And if they do, the more safety measures they will take. Why? Because companies want to be profitable. And there's nothing profitable about not hedging against risk.

Problem is, these are government waters. That's why BP skimped out. The risks to them were low because they knew there is virtually no mechanism in place - no property rights - that could be used to hold them accountable for the costs of an accident. That if they screw up, they just need to pay off a few regulators and politicians to avoid paying the costs.

It doesn't work that way in court. Contracts are much more straightforward. And had these waters been owned by private individuals and organizations (what could be bad about that?) they could readily hold BP accountable for the costs. In fact, the risk to BP of an accident in this kind of environment would be so much higher that it there's a good chance BP would have paid for that shutoff valve.



....this isn't just theory. This process of analyzing risks and hedging against them occurs every day. There is an entire industry - a 100% natural market formation - whose sole purpose is to help companies determine the risk of complex projects so that they can rationally price that risk and cost-effectively hedge against it. Why? Again, because firms want to be profitable, and there is nothing profitable about taking excess risks without hedging against them.











.....(for anyone) don't point to Wall Street and this recent financial collapse as evidence that this is wrong. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bank of America, and the rest of 'em are all in bed with government and are protected by a myriad of legislation that protects them all against risks at the taxpayer's expense. That's what Frannie Mae was used for. That's what Freddie Mac was used for. That's what TARP, the bailouts, and the Federal Reserve inflating the money supply to loan hundreds of billions of dollars at 0% interest to these banks was for. All of these were designed to take away risks from the banks and transfer them onto the taxpayer. The most regulated industry in our economy is our financial markets. And the big players in the industry have captured the regulators and have used the agencies to pass laws that protect their own interests.

There's nothing "free market" about this. This is tyranny, Fascism, Corporatism, not freedom. There are alternatives! In a free, less government-controlled market, these banks wouldn't be able to hide behind the Federal Reserve, TARP, the bailouts, Freddie and Frannie, or anything. That's how it works in many parts of the world. Great places like Hong Kong and Singapore, respectively ranked first and second as the freest economies in the world by the CATO Institute and the WSJ. Maybe we could learn a thing or two from them?
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 287
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/13/2010 9:31:16 AM
Unfortunately Krebby is right and Ubiq is wrong. "command and control, top down intervention"

Yes has been so for 150 years, the reason is very simplistic, "GREED"!!

120 years ago it was the railroads, left to their own devices, they would have acted as jesse james or worse, adjusting freight rates, for "what the market will bear", in that case, since there was only 1 railroad track, they would determine what would have to be borne.

Then cam the telephone company and utilities. Yes let's take AT&T, now after they have you "hooked" on the service(nice analogy), they determine what you will pay. Just think back to when we first had wireless services, in an highly unregulated market, some people were getting $1,000 a month bills!! The difference here is that competition was possible, similar to the airlines.

Now let's look at utilities, anyone heard of Enron? They traded electric power, through the grid and almost bankrupted the state (and everyone in it) of California. That was happening in the "unregulated market era.

Oil while different is not the same, yes there are small companies who compete. BUT they have zero market impact. Exxon, BP, Chevron and a maybe 2 others control the pricing in our country, from the sheer size of the market.

Out of all this has grown a disdain(supported by Bush, Cheney and the congress) for rules, regulations and control. In essence they are while not to big to fail, possibly to big to control. They give massive amounts of lobbying money, actually OWN certain senators and congressmen, because of their influence. This is no different than the banking monopolies enjoyed by the top 5 banks, who control, some 60 to 70% of banking activities(credit cards, chcking accounts, etc) for most people.

When they go unchecked, they say "hey what's to stop us?" and their right, they changed the usury laws, and now instead of 8 or 10% interest, they can charge 70%, and some fools still get those cards!

Again, corporations act in their own self interest at all times. They are not people, so they are only about what they can make in profits, they have no conscience. The people who run them are supposed to, however if it meant making 20 million(personally) or 5 million, which will they choose? They always have their litany of excuses, "I was voted down in committee", "someone higher up made that decision", "I was just doing my job" and on and on.

Free markets only work, when there is enough competition, so that nobody controls more than 20% of any market, and no small group of companies control more than half. Still with human nature and ethics, something not taught to our kids(please don't kid yourself). As people come into business, they leave their conscience at home, and only support causes to have a photo op. You need regulation, but adequate people for the job, not lifetime polotical cronies who are there to kiss someones azz.
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 288
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/13/2010 10:07:14 AM
I would also like to address something I covered much earlier in this thread, "murder"!

Not till the last 100 years of so, did we resort to parsing words, or qualifing the death of another human being. If someone died at your hands, or you caused someones death, it was murder. It started with "accidental death", a phrase that covered a multitude of sins. What truly was an accident, and what had a probable outcome based on what you told people to do.

Corporations have murdered more people than anything except war or religion.

Stop and think about how many have died, from building railroads, mine disasters, oil and gas explosions, he11 even food processing, at grain elevators. Funny I have yet to read in my perusal of history, of one executive of a corporation dying, this way. They always have the ordinary worker, his supervisor or manager die. Then starts the spin, "it was an accident", "we took precautions", "we didn't know that could happen".

This is just another case of justification. If we do it this way we make $6 out of $10, if we eliminate those safety concerns, we make $7.50. "Ok let's try it without the safety features, it'll make our bottom line look good"!

Now how many middle managers will say that thinking, "if I make the company more money, they will make me an executive". Then they get promoted. What does that mean for the next guy? He saw the example, he saw what happened, he saw the guy rewarded for playing russian roulette with men's lives.

Then we have the executive, who gets up and says "I dunno how it happened" when HE was the one who did it first, but convienently forgets that, cause he got away with it. Ala Mr. Haywood, who needs his life back, douchbag that he is.

The human mind is an amazing thing, and can justify anything, to not feel the pain of taking anothers life. Excuses, excuses, excuses, and the law parsing words, allows it. We now have 68 different things you can be guilty of for 1 CRIME, MURDER!! The punishment, can vary from probation, to life in prison or execution. How is it not "premeditated", if you planned to NOT employ those safety features? How is it not a crime or ricco conspiracy, when it's a group who plans it?

Sorry guys, can't buy the argument, that fuking lawyers, can mitigate the taking of a life, by circumstances. If your the top dog of a major corporation, you take responsibilty for whatever happens, even if it is someone who works below you in the chain of command. If you run the sh1thole, you should know what's going on.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >