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

EXACTLY, and I'm proud that Obama is telling BP to go fuck themselves despite receiving $ from them.

If only he'd do that to Goldman and the bailout bunch.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Three things I'd do:

1.) Instead of our boys in Congress grandstanding and wasting time grilling BP executives with stupid questions along the lines of 'Is every drop of oil on Florida's beaches the result of BP's negligence?', they could either a.) Be working on bills of actual importance (Hey, how's that medicare bill goin'?) or b.) Be down on the Florida shores helping with the clean-up. At least then something useful would be done. Don't get me wrong, there needs to be investigation into what the hell went wrong, etc... but this kind of crap isn't helping anyone. Do you really think Heyward knows exactly what went wrong? Do you really think that even if he did explain it to these congressmen, they'd know what he was talking about?[/quote]
That's the legislative branch. Obama is executive.
2.) Instead of wasting taxpayer money on transportation, boarding and security details while Obama goes out and plays golf, how about he spends $200 on a Wii, $10 on a fake plastic club for the Wii Remote and take a vacation in the White House and save all that taxpayer money to help with the cleanup and such. (Yes, BP should pay for it, but they only have so much money.) Hell, spring for Tiger Woods and a Wii Motion Plus. I hear it's good.
Click to expand...
wat
3.) Instead of paying for groups of people to clean up and paying unemployment for the Rigmen that Obama's moratorium on drilling has put out of work, why not train the Rigmen on cleanup procedures? Seems like it would be handy to have a bunch of people in the area and already in the field knowing how to handle such a situation instead of flying in so many people.
Click to expand...
BP is paying for unemployed platform workers. They have a $100 million fund just for that. And they're hiring anyone that wants work to clean up. There's ads all over the Gulf.

But to pretend to be a human being for a second (lolz amirite?), who the fuck would want to clean up the gulf when that shit is out there?
BP Plc and a Nalco Holding Co. unit, the maker of a chemical dispersant used to deal with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, were sued by Louisiana residents claiming the product is four times more toxic than the oil itself.
Click to expand...
Sorry honey. Daddy has to work for shit wages in ultra toxic conditions cause BP can't get its shit together.

OMG GET YOUR LAZY ASSES OUT IN THAT SHIT AND PUMP. THE LAZY FAIRE MARKET IS DEPENDING ON YOU TO NOT TAKE UNEMPLOYMENT WHEN THEY GOT THEM THAR JERBS OUT THERE THAT AMERICANS WILL DO STEAD OF THEM ILLEGALS LOLZ.
BP has refused to provide respirators to many hired fishermen, and the company has reportedly threatened to fire workers who use their own respirators on the job.
Click to expand...
Because they don't want pictures of people in hazmat suits out there influencing people that might think it actually IS all BP's fault.
Monday night, the first statewide health survey in Louisiana tracking the health impact of oil spill shows more than 75 workers have been treated for symptoms.
Click to expand...
Has it occurred to you that there are actual human beings at the end of this debate? This isn't theoretical horse play, there are actual people making that decision right now.
4.) Bonus! Don't let your guys pull professional clean up vessels off the job for safety inspections when they could be out there cleaning up. http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-gov-bobby-jindals-wishes-crude/story?id=10946379 It's like pulling over a firetruck to check for seatbelts while someone's house is burning down. Could they not have rotated the ships they were checking? Looked for life vests and fire extinguishers while these guys were doing their jobs?
Click to expand...
In the ultimate irony, you know one of those ships was later struck by lightning and caught fire right? And that fire was put out by extinguishers onboard right?
5.) Bonus x2. Smack the crap out of any BP personnel or BP hired goon that tries to keep reporters off of public property. That just ain't right.
Click to expand...
State =! Federal. I would think a brave constitutional warrior like yourself would understand that.

So what should Obama do again?
 
[quote name='speedracer']That's the legislative branch. Obama is executive.[/quote]

Yeah, because Obama has never, in any way, shape, or form made any influence on what Congress has done or what they're working on. Ever.

wat
Click to expand...

Exactly what I said.

BP is paying for unemployed platform workers. They have a $100 million fund just for that. And they're hiring anyone that wants work to clean up. There's ads all over the Gulf.
Click to expand...

BP does not have infinite resources.
Many people are speculating that BP may go bankrupt.
It seems to me, it would make sense to spend the money wisely. There's only so much money we'll be able to squeeze out of BP for the damages.

But to pretend to be a human being for a second (lolz amirite?), who the fuck would want to clean up the gulf when that shit is out there?

Sorry honey. Daddy has to work for shit wages in ultra toxic conditions cause BP can't get its shit together.
Click to expand...

So... umm... better plan is to just leave it and do nothing? I don't understand what you're aiming for here... either we clean it up or we leave it. Why not train and pay unemployed people to clean it up?

Because they don't want pictures of people in hazmat suits out there influencing people that might think it actually IS all BP's fault.
Click to expand...

So... we can stop people from cleaning up the spill to make sure they're working in safe conditions when they're on boats... but we can't stop people from cleaning up the spill any other time to check for safe working conditions?

In the ultimate irony, you know one of those ships was later struck by lightning and caught fire right? And that fire was put out by extinguishers onboard right?
Click to expand...

You mean the fire extinguishers they had on board before the Coast Guard inspected them?
Unless something new has came out, it's my understanding that not a single major violation was found during the inspections.

State =! Federal. I would think a brave constitutional warrior like yourself would understand that.
Click to expand...

Weird. Freedom of the press and all that.
Not to mention, if Obama can shake down BP for billions, I think he could say "Hey, don't do this."
 
[quote name='UncleBob'] Not to mention, if Obama can shake down BP for billions, I think he could say "Hey, don't do this."[/QUOTE]

We're waiting for your apology...
 
[quote name='Clak']Shouldn't they be fighting the image that republicans are friends to oil companies?[/QUOTE]

Come on, guy. November elections are totally 4 months and 2 weeks away. They'll have the relief well in by August and everything will be back to normal by Labor Day.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You mean the fire extinguishers they had on board before the Coast Guard inspected them?
Unless something new has came out, it's my understanding that not a single major violation was found during the inspections.[/QUOTE]

Oh, if this is true, it's even more awesome-sauce...

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N19189717.htm
After 24 hours, the barges went back to work, and according to media reports, no inspections were performed.
Click to expand...
 
Obama and his administration gang-raping BP isn't going to clean up this horrible unavoidable natural disaster Msut. We need to stop playing the blame game and get busy.
 
Then when it's cleaned up (or as close as it's ever going to get to clean) we can forget it ever happened and who was responsible.
 
i just read that were all going to die from a giant methane gas bubble that will be released as a result of the oil spill. bummer.
 
I think it's pretty funny that the standard deflection point right now is to shift all the blame onto Obama, despite the cartoon cavalcade of bullshit that's come to light since this whole thing started.

I get the feeling some of you guys fall over and decide that Obama is to blame. You know, instead of your own clumsiness. Or gravity, which to the common 'pube-ican, is "still just a theory" and thus "we can't be sure it's true."
 
[quote name='Strell']I think it's pretty funny that the standard deflection point right now is to shift all the blame onto Obama, despite the cartoon cavalcade of bullshit that's come to light since this whole thing started.

I get the feeling some of you guys fall over and decide that Obama is to blame. You know, instead of your own clumsiness. Or gravity, which to the common 'pube-ican, is "still just a theory" and thus "we can't be sure it's true."[/QUOTE]

Obama isn't Jewish. They are the ones that control gravity.
 
[quote name='Strell']I think it's pretty funny that the standard deflection point right now is to shift all the blame onto Obama, despite the cartoon cavalcade of bullshit that's come to light since this whole thing started.

I get the feeling some of you guys fall over and decide that Obama is to blame. You know, instead of your own clumsiness. Or gravity, which to the common 'pube-ican, is "still just a theory" and thus "we can't be sure it's true."[/QUOTE]

Man, after about 10 years of "It's the president's fault", you think you'd be used to hearing that.
 
Your amazing ability to think up the absolute worst analogies I've ever seen somehow manages to get better every time. Pretty soon you'll be writing jokes for Dennis Miller, if he weren't so busy sucking O'Reilly's cock.
 
[quote name='Strell']Your amazing ability to think up the absolute worst analogies I've ever seen somehow manages to get better every time. Pretty soon you'll be writing jokes for Dennis Miller, if he weren't so busy sucking O'Reilly's cock.[/QUOTE]

Wow. Someone's spent some time thinking about that image.
 
That was entirely your post, man. You're the one who posted about what you'd like to see done with O'Riley's penis. Don't try to push your fantasies off on me.
 
[quote name='Strell']You're still talking about this? Damn. Get a hobby. Like, say, playing video games.[/QUOTE]

Thanks, that was awesome.
 
Bush was the decider, as I recall.

If Obama was the decider, according to conservatives, he would have been done socializing the country by now. BP would have gotten rid of that oil well in January 2009. But that didn't happen did it?

I blame Obama because he should have cleaned out the culture of corruption that was so blatant at MMS. The fact that Salazar hired someone who was part of that revolving door to head the MMS is also troubling.
 
Yeah, poor Obama. Mean people are blaming him.

He can be blamed for his non-response to the spill. Go back and take a look at his social calendar since the well blew. He then gives a speech on May 27 (IIRC) where he said “In case you were wondering who’s responsible, I take responsibility”.

Since then? More golf and such.

Barry, when there is a disaster of epic proportions and you are trying to convince people that you are in control of the situation and are doing everything you can to solve the problem, it's not a good idea to be seen out goofing off.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Bush was the decider, as I recall.

If Obama was the decider, according to conservatives, he would have been done socializing the country by now. BP would have gotten rid of that oil well in January 2009. But that didn't happen did it?
[/QUOTE]

Bush may have been the decider, but Obama is our ruler. He was supposed to be ready to rule (not 'lead', as one would expect) on day one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7Nlq80DVpo
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Yes, yes, yes. We should focus the debate on how bad Obama is. If Obama was just a better leader, this wouldn't have happened.[/QUOTE]

Obama cannot realistically be blamed for this any more than Bush can be blamed for 9/11 or Katrina.

The only thing Obama can be blamed for is his actions following the events.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Obama cannot realistically be blamed for this any more than Bush can be blamed for 9/11 or Katrina.[/QUOTE]

God these apples taste so good. Like oranges.
 
I think I made a long post about this before, so I'm not going to retype something similar to it. The gist was that the difference between this oil spill and Katrina is that it was the government's responsibility the handle a disaster like Katrina, the government has never been able to handle oil spills. If Bush were in office now he couldn't do any more than Obama has. Katrina on the other hand, well I'm not even getting into how that was handled.
 
I will bet one supreme gordita that most atheists cant explain complex scientific theory any more than most Christians can explain faith.
 
[quote name='Strell']God these apples taste so good. Like oranges.[/QUOTE]

Tell Team Obama to stop making 9/11 comparisons then.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']
Speedracer, what are your thoughts on the government increasing taxes on each barrel of oil from 8 cents to 41 cents?[/QUOTE]

My two cents on it....I"m mixed.

On the one hand I'm for it as it would:

-help spur alternative fuel development (especially if the added taxes go to funding research and development)

-encourage buying higher MPG vehicles

-encourage use of public transit where available, carpooling etc.

But on the other hand:

-It would really just hurt the middle and lower class living in areas where there is no public transit etc., and most of the SUV driving urban yuppies will just shrug off the increase and go about driving as usual.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Jesus Christ...:roll:[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's kinda what I thought when I read this:
“In the same way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by 9/11,” the president said in an Oval Office interview on Friday, "I think this disaster is going to shape how we think about the environment and energy for many years to come.”
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Jesus Christ...:roll:

Speedracer, what are your thoughts on the government increasing taxes on each barrel of oil from 8 cents to 41 cents?[/QUOTE]

Like dmaul said. Depends on what they do with the cash.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Like dmaul said. Depends on what they do with the cash.[/QUOTE]

To clarify, that was a tiny part of my post.

Even if it goes to alternative energy R&D, I'm not sure I can stomach that disproportionate impact it will have on the middle and lower classes--particularly those with no public transit options, no cash to buy a new car as they're driving one that's been paid off a long time etc.

The people who are the problem--the people driving SUVs with no other passengers in stop and go traffic when they could get to and from work faster on the subway etc.--can mostly afford to shrug off the tax.

But it would be a big burden on the working poor and even much of the middle class.
 
After this the price of oil is only going to go up. The cost of whatever safety measure is going to pass on to us.
 
[quote name='62t']After this the price of oil is only going to go up. The cost of whatever safety measure is going to pass on to us.[/QUOTE]

Just curious. Does anyone know what % of oil comes from off shore wells?

If it's a small %, then the added safety measures wouldn't have much impact on oil prices, but if it's a large % then the that's a very real concern.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Jesus Christ...:roll:

Speedracer, what are your thoughts on the government increasing taxes on each barrel of oil from 8 cents to 41 cents?[/QUOTE]
That's the best way to cost an externality. If you used the money to develop viable competitors to oil via a tax on oil (either by investment in technology research, rebates for buyers, or both), that's the best oil risk mitigation strategy. Dramatically reducing demand means the companies wouldn't need to go to the hardest places to get it or to cultivate relationships with our enemies to get it.

Any politician that supported that tax in a swing state would be butchered at the polls and I seriously doubt you could get even a single Republican vote for it. Maybe Collins but I doubt it. They would run 24/7 "Dems raised poor people's taxes" ads.

Business Insider says its the government's fault for not having an open insurance system and allowing BP to "exploit" the situation and insure in-house. Apparently that inefficiency means BP wouldn't properly price the risk. But doesn't rational self-interest mean that managing the risk in-house would cause more caution on the well, not less? The bullshit vortex swirls.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bp-r...tock+(ClusterStock)&utm_content=Google+Reader

Internal BP memos say the spill may be 100,000 barrels a day, up from today's highest estimate of 60,000. If shit goes wrong, 200,000 a day is possible. Surprise or something.

We need to put this guy in charge of something important immediately. Rep. Phil Gingrey (R) of Georgia:
For the life of me, I can't understand why BP couldn't go into the ocean floor, maybe 10 feet lateral to the - around the periphery - drill a few holes and put a little ammonium nitrate, some dynamite, in those holes and detonate that dynamite and seal that leak. And seal it permanently."
Click to expand...

BP CEO gets $16 million if he steps down. More if he's shit canned. Clearly the market is doing great work on the issue of executive pay.

On the Obama wanting to shut deep water drilling down until we get a handle on it. For those thinking he's being a mean old librul hurting hard workin Murrkins, a couple of choice points:
Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) just asked Hayward if there are any other BP wells that were drilled with various controversial procedures. Turns out most BP wells are drilled like this: "There are many wells that have the same casing design. Many have been drilled with the same cement procedure," Hayward says.
Click to expand...
Suddenly regulators are paying more attention to a former BP worker who has been complaining since 2009 that his company did not get approval on engineering plans, according to WaPo. Kenneth Abbott testified at hearings today: "The overwhelming majority of documents and drawings had never received any engineering approval at any phase of development," Kenneth W. Abbott, who was fired in February 2009, says in testimony prepared for delivery Thursday to a House subcommittee.
Click to expand...
So the idiots sue and the judge (rightly on the basis of the facts) overturns Obama and puts an injunction on the deep water ban. Thing is, Obama wanted 6 months to do a quickie review on all the crap out there, but it was going to be a "let's all get together and see what we're up to and whether we're ok" session. Now the industry has forced Obama to do it the "right" way, which mean Salazar is going to write the most vicious, expensive, time consuming regulations he can think of. If I was an industry player, I'd fucking fire the dumbass who thought suing on this was a good idea. I'd prolly fire everyone he ever talked to just in case he infected others with the stupid.

Lolquote of the day:
“We have to get the priorities right,” the chief executive of BP said. “And Job 1 is to get to these things that have happened, get them fixed and get them sorted out. We don’t just sort them out on the surface, we get them fixed deeply.”
Click to expand...
That quote is 4 years old.

Lolquote #2:
In response to a U.S. senator's questions in a letter, BP said it never follows a federal law requiring it to certify that a blowout preventer device would be able to block a well in case of an emergency. The inquiry stemmed from a hearing in May into the Gulf oil spill from the explosion and fire which sank the Deepwater Horizon rig.

But, at the same time, the British oil giant blamed the federal oversight agency, Minerals Management Service, for not asking it to comply with the law.
Click to expand...

[quote name='62t']After this the price of oil is only going to go up. The cost of whatever safety measure is going to pass on to us.[/QUOTE]
Our oil use is subsidized. The price should go up significantly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So the idiots sue and the judge (rightly on the basis of the facts) overturns Obama and puts an injunction on the deep water ban. Thing is, Obama wanted 6 months to do a quickie review on all the crap out there, but it was going to be a "let's all get together and see what we're up to and whether we're ok" session. Now the industry has forced Obama to do it the "right" way, which mean Salazar is going to write the most vicious, expensive, time consuming regulations he can think of. If I was an industry player, I'd ing fire the dumbass who thought suing on this was a good idea. I'd prolly fire everyone he ever talked to just in case he infected others with the stupid.
Click to expand...

The judge who overturned the case has a conflict of interest.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100622/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2771?dfs
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']What would be the point of taxing the American People for something we subsidize?[/QUOTE]

If you just stop subsidizing something, then you take the government out of the equation. People are paying the real cost of the item and there's no government influence.

If you tax the people and subsidize the goods, you've got the government in the pockets of both groups - the consumers and the producers.

Obviously, any situations where the government can be more involved is good.

When you are the government, that is.
 
Removing the government subsidies still wouldn't have people paying the real cost. I'm for ending the subsidies of course, but you'd probably still have to add a tax and increase regulation to get somewhere near the real cost.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Removing the government subsidies still wouldn't have people paying the real cost. I'm for ending the subsidies of course, but you'd probably still have to add a tax and increase regulation to get somewhere near the real cost.[/QUOTE]

If there was increased regulation leading to things like costs associated with safety measures and such, it would be paid for by the company - who would increase the price of the products to compensate.

You would need taxes to pay for the bureaucracy associated with inspections and such. But is that the real cost of the good or is that the cost of living and working in a safe environment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top