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

Goddamnit, shit like that pisses me off. We have to side with you guys on this kind of shit when Obama does bad shit.

If only you guys sided with us when Bush took a shit on the Constitution.
 
This week in lolspills:

The 65 yard thing. Was gonna be 300 yards but they cut it down to 60. Still fucked. I understand the idea, but the idea is shit. Charge people that actively dick with your stuff but otherwise, they need to piss right off with that.

Stuff bob didn't get to because it didn't involve Obama:

McClatchy says the Jones Act bullshit is bullshit.

CNBC, no lover of ObaMao, agrees.

"We can't stop it. There's no skimming, booms aren't working in the heavy surf. It's a mess right now. And "the largest [oil] plumes we've seen yet are offshore."

Moar "use respirators and we'll fire you".

That dumb shit governor of Mississippi Haley Barbour was the idiot on teevee talking down the spill and ridiculing people that were pissed about it a few weeks ago. Guess what happened? Now, with oil hitting his state's beaches for the first time since the start of the BP spill, the Republican governor says his state isn't prepared for the spill and needs more help.

The oil is now all up in the Louisiana wetlands and just hit northeast Florida. Intel modeling has it going all the way up the east coast.

Criminal charges? But surely they wouldn't do something criminal! Their image is at stake!

Rock bottom dumb comment of the week:
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']P.S. Oil spill? Leave the oil company to fix it. It hurts their image, and they've got the expertise and money. Government bureaucrats can barely clean up a cup of spilled coffee.[/QUOTE]

Totally! It's not like they would dick over America to save a few bucks, right?
“By sinking and dispersing the oil, BP can amortize the cost of the cleanup over the next 15 years or so, as tar balls continue to roll up on the beaches, rather than dealing with the issue now by removing the oil from the water with the proper equipment,” McCallister testified earlier this week before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. “As a financial adviser, I understand financial engineering and BP’s desire to stretch out its costs of remediating the oil spill in the Gulf. By managing the cleanup over a period of many years, BP is able to minimize the financial damage as opposed to a huge expenditure in a period of a few years.”
Click to expand...

The "OMFG OBAMAO JUST EXTORTED BP AND THATS COMMUNIST AND SHIT" $20 bil fund has severely undercut the legal fees that lawyers would leech. Unclebob will check in soon with savage commentary.

Almost everyone who worked to clean up the Exxon Valdez mess is dead. Average life expectancy was 51, 20+ years shorter than average. Don't worry folks, BP wouldn't let that happen. It cares about its image after all.
 
Thanks for that compilation speed, thoroughly enjoyed it (though I think we frequent the same blogs, I feel like I've heard most of what you posted before).

There's a joke on 4chan /new/ where you just make fun of libertarians by saying 'free market will fix it.'

I didn't think it was actually the MO of actual libertarians until I saw ChickenMan's posts.
 
[quote name='Strell']Always nice to see thinktank level retorts from UB.[/QUOTE]

Nice to see thinktank level retorts from Strell.
 
[quote name='IRHari']They put a cap on it apparently. Wiating to see how effective it is.[/QUOTE]
It might seem pessimistic, but I'm thinking as successful as the last two caps.
 
Didn't see this coming.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upsho...-role-in-the-release-of-a-notorious-terrorist

Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey wants to know whether a quid pro quo led to the 2009 decision by U.K. and Scottish lawmakers to set the Libyan terrorist free. Megrahi was sentenced to life in prison in 2001, but released last year when doctors said he had only three months to live before dying of cancer. A doctor now says he could live a decade, according to the Associated Press. The senator wants to know whether the bomber's release was connected to a BP plan to drill for oil off Libya, which the senator says could earn the company up to $20 billion.
Click to expand...
Interesting theory, curious if anything will come of it.
 
SEE guys???? Emperor Ron Paul was right!! THe free market fixed it!!! No gummint needed!!!

You're welcome America. - free market
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Are you quoting UncleBob so somebody will see his post?[/QUOTE]

I love that idea though. The same people who throw temper-tantrums because the conversation isn't directed by their whims also get to direct other posters how they should post. It's funny.
 
[quote name='IRHari']SEE guys???? Emperor Ron Paul was right!! THe free market fixed it!!! No gummint needed!!!

You're welcome America. - free market[/QUOTE]

do you really think the federal government could have stopped the flow faster?
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']do you really think the federal government could have stopped the flow faster?[/QUOTE]

Of course. Obama had asked Congress to pass a bill demanding the oil to stop flowing, but the damn Republicans kept crapping on the bill, blocking the 60 votes the Democrats needed in order to pass it.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Bob, some people block Knoell, too.[/QUOTE]

I'm aware of that. I'm honestly not sure what Knoell was doing there.
I'm just saying, I find it funny that those who are upset that they can't always control the conversation are also demanding that people post in a way that they approve of. Some people just think they're royalty or something.
 
I love how the Yahoo front page needs a few clicks and some squinting to find Oil Cap news, yet the LeBron James tacky costume jewelry thingy gets top billing.
God I hate people.

So I'm curious as to whether or not people around here think there's any traction on the current administration delaying BP's attempts to fix/clean anything in an attempt to draw attention to Cap & Trade.
Personally, I think it's absurd, but at the same time there's definitely some odd things happening and it does appear that local attempts to "get to work" were indeed blocked by the Fed.
 
Wow seriously? Didn't I say the free market would and DID fix it? Wtf you talkign about the government fixing it? You're gonna have to back that up RAM. I never said that.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Wow seriously? Didn't I say the free market would and DID fix it? Wtf you talkign about the government fixing it? You're gonna have to back that up RAM. I never said that.[/QUOTE]

He's likely referring to the fact that you go into every thread and drop a sarcastic "the free market will fix it" bomb.

It's obvious you are being sarcastic, so it's easy to assume that your actual belief system is somewhere in the neighborhood of the opposite.
 
Of course saying the "Free Market will fix things" is an obvious tip off to jocularity but the posters that say nothing but "Government will Screw it UP!" totally ok.
 
Wait because you think I sarcastically chant the Paulistinian mantra in every thread, that automatically means I'm a statist? Since when did I ever say that the answer to this lies with the federal government?

I think it makes sense to say BP should fix this shit because BP is the one who caused this shit in the first place.
 
FOC - Well, isn't it a long standing notion that Dems prefer poor people because the Dems create programs to help the poor since they're a majority voting base?

Sarcasm aside, I think they would see it as less of a benefit and more like collateral damage. This is of course if, AND ONLY IF, you subscribe to the notion that overall the disaster is helpful for the Cap and Trade folks.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Wait because you think I sarcastically chant the Paulistinian mantra in every thread, that automatically means I'm a statist? Since when did I ever say that the answer to this lies with the federal government?
[/quote]

i quoted your post and asked a question based off that post.

I think it makes sense to say BP should fix this shit because BP is the one who caused this shit in the first place.
Click to expand...

thats not the same.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I think it makes sense to say BP should fix this shit because BP is the one who caused this shit in the first place.[/QUOTE]

Why does it make more sense for BP to fix the problems they've caused, but individuals who do stuff like have children they can't afford or get home loans they can't afford should get help from tax payers?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Why does it make more sense for BP to fix the problems they've caused, but individuals who do stuff like have children they can't afford or get home loans they can't afford should get help from tax payers?[/QUOTE]

How much does an unplanned pregnancy cost the economy again?
 
[quote name='nasum']FOC - Well, isn't it a long standing notion that Dems prefer poor people because the Dems create programs to help the poor since they're a majority voting base?

Sarcasm aside, I think they would see it as less of a benefit and more like collateral damage. This is of course if, AND ONLY IF, you subscribe to the notion that overall the disaster is helpful for the Cap and Trade folks.[/QUOTE]

Typically, the party in power suffers when the economy tanks. People in the South might vote against Dems if their livelihood is based on fishing or tourism. If a hurricane blows through the Gulf and puts all of the gushed oil across the first ten to fifty miles of coastal property, the South will have nothing left.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']How much does an unplanned pregnancy cost the economy again?[/QUOTE]

Ohhh I get it, people should only be responsible for the big ticket actions. Gotcha.

So if I stop paying my mortgage then I shouldnt be held responsible for my actions, its not that much money compared to this oil spill right?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']How much does an unplanned pregnancy cost the economy again?[/QUOTE]

How much is this oil spill going to cost the economy again?
 
I can't beleive this.
Vessels of Opportunity "workers can file a claim, but we will subtract the amount they are paid from BP from their claim. That is how it has to work .... Of course you can file a claim. You must file a claim, but you cannot get paid twice," Feinberg told the meeting.
Click to expand...

So why should anyone sign up for the clean up then? You'd be better off letting them hire someone else.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']How much is this oil spill going to cost the economy again?[/QUOTE]

Knoell and you would be well served by reading an intro to economics book.

The oil spill is shrinking the economy. A fisherman effectively has no job because his product has been ruined. The owner of a vacant coastal property loses his property because the ability to use his product has been ruined.

When an unplanned pregnancy occurs, there is economic expansion. The health care bills that aren't paid? They were inflated four or fives times over. Then, those inflated medical bills are either sold to a collections agency for more than they would have collected from an insured party or they take the tax deduction against their profits. Subsidized daycare and education? It provides a significant portion of a job to somebody at a day care center or school and smaller portions of jobs at the gas station, car lot and restaurants.

Sure, the unplanned pregnancy may limit that particular person or two to an economic level much higher than yours or Knoell, but there is overall expansion instead of contraction.
 
So, you're trying to say that individuals having children they can't pay for is good for the economy?

Ummm.. yeah...

Sounds a lot like BP talking about how much they've helped the coastal economy, with all the people coming in and staying in hotels to help with research, cleanup and news reporting and such...
 
BP has also helped lubricate wildlife, so now it's much easier for them to swim. So BP is also good for the environment.

birdsinoil.jpg
 
[quote name='IRHari']BP has also helped lubricate wildlife, so now it's much easier for them to swim. So BP is also good for the environment.

birdsinoil.jpg
[/QUOTE]

Awesome. Now, let me go dig up some pictures of neglected, malnourished, beaten and abused children.

Wonder how much taxpayer funds have been spent helping these 'parents'.

Note - I'm not arguing, at all, that BP shouldn't pay for clean up and damages. I'm simply stating that it's unfair and hypocritical to say that individuals working for a company should be solely responsible for the company's own actions but individuals should be allowed to depend on the government (i.e.: everyone else) to pick up the pieces of whatever disaster they've made of their life. Why the double standard?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Note - I'm not arguing, at all, that BP shouldn't pay for clean up and damages. I'm simply stating that it's unfair and hypocritical to say that individuals working for a company should be solely responsible for the company's own actions but individuals should be allowed to depend on the government (i.e.: everyone else) to pick up the pieces of whatever disaster they've made of their life. Why the double standard?[/QUOTE]

Bob, Bob, Bob. Come on now. BP is going to cause at least a trillion dollars worth of damage before all is said and done. BP only has $150 billion or so until it is liquidated. There is no chance BP will even pay for a significant portion of their damages.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Bob, Bob, Bob. Come on now. BP is going to cause at least a trillion dollars worth of damage before all is said and done. BP only has $150 billion or so until it is liquidated. There is no chance BP will even pay for a significant portion of their damages.[/QUOTE]

And is anyone (besides BP and any politicians they paid off) okay with this? Really?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, you're trying to say that individuals having children they can't pay for is good for the economy?

Ummm.. yeah...

Sounds a lot like BP talking about how much they've helped the coastal economy, with all the people coming in and staying in hotels to help with research, cleanup and news reporting and such...[/QUOTE]

See. This is where reading a freshman economics textbook would help you out. You could determine events that expand the economy and events that contract the economy.

You're trying to argue somebody chopping down a tree is just as bad as a fire destroying a tree.

From the tree's perspective, the result of death is the same.

From an economic perspective, that chopped tree can be put to many positive uses whereas a burned tree is a crude fertilizer at best.

Before you try changing the subject, could you read over my post a few times and let me know if you have any grasp of what I'm describing?
 
I do understand what you're saying - however, it doesn't change the fact that, even the oil spill is creating areas of expansion. Because of this spill, we've got tons of industries investing in technology to clean up large-scale oil spills. Heck, here's a story on a local company: http://uwire.com/2010/07/01/carmi-based-company-booms-from-gulf-oil-spill/

We've got renewed calls for cleaner sources of energy (something that's going to pump tons of money through the economy. Granted, it's money no one has to spend right now, but that won't stop us anyway).

And, as I said before, simple things like the number of people going down to the area to report, investigate and participate in the clean-up efforts. These people are spending bucketloads of cash.

Then, you've got the money BP is going to (well, maybe...) pay out to businesses that may have just closed anyway due to the economy.

All of these things help expand the economy (expect, maybe, that part about spending money we don't have...).


And, not to change the subject (although this is closer to my original question) should the effect on the overall economy be what determines when the government should intervene on using taxpayer funds to correct mistakes made by individuals? "You had three kids you can't afford. Eventually, those kids will grow up and might pay in some taxes. Money for you!" "You destroyed an entire coastline. Much money was lost. Nothing for you. You have to clean up your mess yourself. Who cares if the continued devastation of the coast line causes even more loss of potential growth in the economy. Walk it off, Barbara."
 
Weird. I thought individuals made up corporations.

Perhaps they're all run by computers programmed eons ago by a race of now-extinct space aliens.

Or maybe they're still just ran by people. People that put their pants on, one leg at a time, like you and I. All people *should* be held equally liable for their own actions. I know, I know, it's a scary thought - being responsible for yourself.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I do understand what you're saying[/QUOTE]

By what you posted after the above, you don't.

EDIT: Is there some other way I can help you understand this event will cause an overall economic contraction?
 
I suppose you could build a time machine and take me to the future where your assumptions are proven right.

Either way, does it matter? If bad-decision-X has a bad effect on the economy, then the government taxpayers shouldn't be responsible, but if bad-decision-Y has a good effect on the economy, then the government taxpayers should be responsible?

And by not stepping in and doing everything possible to clean up this mess, isn't it just making the effects on the economy *worse*? And that's a good thing?
 
Yes, the taxpayers shouldn't be paying for it! BUT WE SHOULDN'T BE ROBBING THE CORPORATION EITHER! Why that's extortion, by golly! Black gold shakedowns, stick-em-ups, and other such things! WE MUST PROTECT THE CORPORATIVE CITIZENRY.

We should all wait for money trees to spring up to pay for it. Yes! Money trees, you fools! Why does no one else see this obvious solution? Money trees! The kind that gold-egg-laying-geese live in, along with unicorns, whose tears can cure cancer and give everyone - even women! - erections. Oh, and lephrachauns are known to flock to these trees too - we can take their gold! And genies will descend from the sky along with Jesus who is called Yesu, and all our dreams will come true!

But I'll be goddamned if we make the corporation pay for it!
 
[quote name='Strell']Yes, the taxpayers shouldn't be paying for it! BUT WE SHOULDN'T BE ROBBING THE CORPORATION EITHER! Why that's extortion, by golly! Black gold shakedowns, stick-em-ups, and other such things! WE MUST PROTECT THE CORPORATIVE CITIZENRY.[/QUOTE]


Damn, if only we humans had evolved to a point where we had laws with courts, judges and juries, along with a system of restitution and appeals in place to both determine guilt and punishment when wrong-doing takes place.

It's such a shame the the only two options we have is to either make taxpayers pay for 100% of the damages *or* letting one man determine punishment based on his whims and poll numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top