The libertarian's guide to externality costing. What do we do about the oil spill?

[quote name='Knoell']wasn't your guys whole argument against capitalism the fact tha BP caused this oil spill because they wanted to make a few extra bucks by cheaping out on the necessary safety protocols?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it was all about the evil capitalists trying to cut corners and make money. I mean, awesome government officials would never do such a thing...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44828.html[/QUOTE]
An investigation with no subpoena power. I've seen better researched investigations about a president's dick.

No subpoena power.

No subpoena power.

Like The People's Court

Investigator: I'd like to talk to you.
Oil exec: fuck off.
Investigator: Please?
Oil exec: fuck off.
Investigator: Yes sir.

""We've not found a situation where we could say man had a choice between safety and dollars and he put his money on dollars," said Fred Bartlit, chief counsel of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. "If anyone has anything like that, we'd of course welcome it."
Click to expand...
bwahahahahahhaha. This is the your evidence.

"Please guys, you know, if you did have something like that, you know, cause we don't, we'd, you know, welcome it."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']An investigation with no subpoena power. I've seen better researched investigations about a president's dick.

No subpoena power.

No subpoena power.

Like The People's Court

Investigator: I'd like to talk to you.
Oil exec: fuck off.
Investigator: Please?
Oil exec: fuck off.
Investigator: Yes sir.


bwahahahahahhaha. This is the your evidence.

"Please guys, you know, if you did have something like that, you know, cause we don't, we'd, you know, welcome it."[/QUOTE]

So what proof are you going to submit that says they did cheap out on necessities? I mean you seem to believe it wholeheartedly, and you always preach about evidence, evidence, evidence, so what do you know that this commission doesn't? Or are you just saying this commission never intended to blame greed?

Or are you just filling in the blanks yourself. Disaster + Corporation = Corporate Greed every time right?
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101110/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill[/QUOTE]

Boy, I'm glad we've got half the nation trying to save us from this scourge of science, and uses bathshit insanity as a valid argument, twisting around things from "environmental disaster" into anti-capitalist remarks, thereby changing the argument and pretending that was always the argument to begin with.

Good show, everyone! Someone shits on your doorstep, and the only thing you are concerned with is "gosh, they could have saved money just shitting on their own doorstep."
 
[quote name='Knoell']So what proof are you going to submit that says they did cheap out on necessities? I mean you seem to believe it wholeheartedly, and you always preach about evidence, evidence, evidence, so what do you know that this commission doesn't? Or are you just saying this commission never intended to blame greed?

Or are you just filling in the blanks yourself. Disaster + Corporation = Corporate Greed every time right?[/QUOTE]
Report from that commission came out today. Mmmmhmmm.
US oil spill: Cost-cutting decisions led to BP disaster

The companies involved in the BP oil spill had made decisions to cut costs and save time that contributed to the disaster, a US panel has found.

In a 48-page report, the presidential commission wrote that the failures were "systemic" and likely to recur without industry and government reform.
[..]
The new report criticises BP, which owned the Macondo well, Transocean and Halliburton, which managed the well sealing operation, and blames inadequate government oversight and regulation.

"Whether purposeful or not, many of the decisions that BP, Halliburton, and Transocean made that increased the risk of the Macondo blow-out clearly saved those companies significant time (and money)," the presidential panel wrote.

"BP did not have adequate controls in place to ensure that key decisions in the months leading up to the blow-out were safe or sound from an engineering perspective."

The findings came in the final report of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, which President Barack Obama convened in May to investigate the root causes of the spill and recommend changes to industry and government policy.

Though it lacked subpoena power, the panel reviewed thousands of pages of documents, interviewed hundreds of witnesses, and in the autumn conducted a series of public hearings.

In a statement released on Wednesday, Bob Graham, former Florida governor and a co-chairman of the commission, said the findings showed the blow-out was avoidable.

"This disaster likely would not have happened had the companies involved been guided by an unrelenting commitment to safety first," he said.
Click to expand...
 
Suddenly the subpeona less panel's opinion matters!

Gotta love it.

Investigator: I'd like to talk to you.
Oil exec: fuck off.
Investigator: Please?
Oil exec: fuck off.
Investigator: It was their fault.
 
slightly related-
concerning the Hurricane Katrina destroying New Orleans-

The relief/recovery effort of New Orleans costs $200 billion. With a population of ~1 million people, we could have just given every single individual $200K or ($800,000 for a family of 4) to relocate somewhere else.

I bring this up because it seems like people make huge decisions on a day-to-day basis instead of taking time to make gather info. Its similar to the clean-up effort where hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent and then it was realized it was a waste of money
 
Hey poor people: get the fuck out and go elsewhere.

But don't tell ME to move somewhere else when I complain 250K a year isn't enough to live on.

-The Rich
 
Not too mention that the government provided protection to the city failed miserably. "Oh yeah the levees will hol.....oh shit."
 
[quote name='Knoell']Suddenly the subpeona less panel's opinion matters!

Gotta love it.

Investigator: I'd like to talk to you.
Oil exec: fuck off.
Investigator: Please?
Oil exec: fuck off.
Investigator: It was their fault.[/QUOTE]

Please keep this quote in mind, people. Facts has no place in the Republican mindset. See how quickly a report was just whisked away with no intellectual rigor whatsoever.

Just remind them that they have no facts, no reason on their side. You can't argue with them, but the best you can do is embarrass the shit out of them.
 
[quote name='IRHari']What point is Knoell trying to make in that quote?[/QUOTE]
Someone leaked that the commission had found that BP and the rest of them hadn't done anything wrong in the way of cutting corners on safety. To which I replied that without subpoena power, the commission couldn't get sworn testimony, therefore it wouldn't be able to really get into the issue (paraphrasing here).

It turns out that leak was 100% fabricated. But rather than question that, Knoell chose to now question the commission since it didn't have subpoena power, something he and the rest chose to completely ignore before. I was afraid the lack of subpoena power would enable BP et al to hide facts. Even without that, the commission's prelim report basically says everyone is at fault and money did play a part in decisions, though not directly.

So the real question is: Knoell, do you think they found everything out there incriminating regarding the spill without subpoena power? Or did they simply find all the easiest to find stuff and there's more out there? I'm just curious what your gut says. I'm pretty sure you know what I think.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Someone leaked that the commission had found that BP and the rest of them hadn't done anything wrong in the way of cutting corners on safety. To which I replied that without subpoena power, the commission couldn't get sworn testimony, therefore it wouldn't be able to really get into the issue (paraphrasing here).

It turns out that leak was 100% fabricated. But rather than question that, Knoell chose to now question the commission since it didn't have subpoena power, something he and the rest chose to completely ignore before. I was afraid the lack of subpoena power would enable BP et al to hide facts. Even without that, the commission's prelim report basically says everyone is at fault and money did play a part in decisions, though not directly.

So the real question is: Knoell, do you think they found everything out there incriminating regarding the spill without subpoena power? Or did they simply find all the easiest to find stuff and there's more out there? I'm just curious what your gut says. I'm pretty sure you know what I think.[/QUOTE]


I am not questioning the commission. I was questioning your logic. When the tide was against you the commision would never ever ever be able to find anything because they didn't have subpeona power. Now that they have found something and the tide has turned in your favor they suddenly are 100% reliable and factual.

My quote was not intended to comment on the commision but speedracers logic. (Pssst which is why I mimicked his prior post)
 
I don't think that was an unreasonable conclusion. The Obama administration seemed very intent on protecting or at least obfuscating BP's situation and liability. In my mind, not getting a commission with subpoena power was Obama's doing (or not doing). I believe the facts are plainly obvious and that a result of anything less than "they're full of shit" would be proof the con was on. At the same time, maybe this is the result they want. BP et al are already on the hook for civil penalties and Justice might throw a nasty gram at them that might cost a few more tens of billions, but the threat of criminal penalties looks all but dead. Subpoena power would have brought any illegal action to the surface real quick.

And who here is really willing to believe that at no point did BP, Halliburton, Transocean, etc. etc. commit a crime? So there you go.
 
So the final report is basically:

1. Nobody could have known.
2. Except everyone.
3. Regulators had no access.
4. So naturally they're partly to blame.
5. Don't you even fucking think about requiring a bond to cover externality costing.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Liquidate the assets of the owners to pay for the clean up and jail time for anyone involved who contributed to this.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='UncleBob']In America, we assume they're guilty if there's no evidence that they're innocent.[/QUOTE]
lol
 
[quote name='speedracer']lol[/QUOTE]

Not sure what's funny - unless you think that I wanted to do jail those who contributed without first determining if they were actually guilty of something.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Not sure what's funny - unless you think that I wanted to do jail those who contributed without first determining if they were actually guilty of something.[/QUOTE]

no shame. no fucking shame.
 
This really belongs in 'Stay Classy Obama' thread...

[quote name='ThinkProgress']BP is paying the man in charge of overseeing its $20 billion victim compensation fund for its devastation of the Gulf of Mexico over $10 million a year. The choice of Washington attorney Kenneth Feinberg to manage the fund in June 2010 was widely lauded at the time, as he had dealt with the challenging tasks of managing the federal September 11th Victim Compensation Fund and serving as Obama’s special master for TARP executive compensation. “I’m running an independent claims facility,” Feinberg told the world. Since then, however, Feinberg has battled with the victims of BP’s toxic crime, trying to compel them to accept small checks in return for signing away any further right to challenge BP. He claimed that “the Gulf of Mexico should largely recover from BP’s oil spill by the end of next year,” in flat contradiction to all scientific evidence.
[/QUOTE]
 
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...p-and-transocean-macondo-surge-of-methane-gas

Offshore rig contractor Transocean Ltd has agreed to pay $1.4 billion to settle U.S. government charges arising from BP Plc's massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

UBS analyst Angie Sedita said the ultimate cost of Macondo to Transocean could end up being more than $4 billion, including a deal with the plaintiffs that may take "years to resolve." Last year, BP reached an estimated $7.8 billion deal to resolve its liability with the plaintiffs.
Click to expand...

This adminstration hates business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top