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

[quote name='Knoell']Explain to me what hes trying to do that is making me look like I don't know what I'm talking about. Ill take your lack of response as proof you don't know what you are talking about.[/QUOTE]

:rofl:
 
Knoell, he's just trying to get you to follow the money. You said that the money we spent on highways should go to trains. You said we would need around 100x the money currently spent on trains to make it work. Your math was pointed out as shoddy and illogical. Then, instead of re-working the numbers (and thus buying into your own argument), you've been impotently arguing with others on the relevancy of numbers to your argument.

At this point, you should pull a number out of your ass or shut the fuck up. I think that is the general consensus at this point.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Knoell, he's just trying to get you to follow the money. You said that the money we spent on highways should go to trains. You said we would need around 100x the money currently spent on trains to make it work. Your math was pointed out as shoddy and illogical. Then, instead of re-working the numbers (and thus buying into your own argument), you've been impotently arguing with others on the relevancy of numbers to your argument.

At this point, you should pull a number out of your ass or shut the fuck up. I think that is the general consensus at this point.[/QUOTE]

I have not said 99% of what you just claimed I did. Nice try though, take your own advice. In all reality, what you claim I said falls more in line with what Foc has said. Interesting.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Huh, it seems that per passenger trains are subsidized far less, but they dont take the passenger nearly as far as any other mode of transportation on that subsidization. Secondly if more than the 97% of the country that drives cars suddenly switched to trains, wouldn't the goverment HAVE to spend far more than they are on cars to maintain that capacity?[/quote]
People aren't going to switch tomorrow. They're going to respond to easy access. Providing that access at the expense of road building and maintenance is what I personally want.
In reality with trains its not about the cost, the routes that they take are not filled as they are now. People just don't want to ride them whereever they go now the trains are not filled to capacity, people dont want to have to live by a train schedule, they don't want to have to wait for a train to go somewhere. Sigh I guess you guys still wont get it, but I tried at least. You can call Americans greedy, environment killers, whatever but it is silly of you all to attempt to convince people that trains are only failing because of lack of subsidization, and the over subsidization of cars, but not the personal preference of Americans. It is also silly of you all to think any amount of money will change that.
Click to expand...
You're a free market guy. You understand that if you subsidize the holy mother of god out of an industry, it's going to be so obviously cheap and easy that people will respond in kind. Preferences are built on subsidization, not the other way around.
 
12 days in and the cap looks like it's holding. At the very least they stopped it and gave the relief wells a chance to catch up. Read that they're going to try to cement it. Here's hoping.
 
We should believe videos that are built to make political points. That's my takeaway lesson from last week.

So when I see that some ideological shitbrick has put together a video talking with a handful of selected 'billies as if they were experts on the matter, and making claims they don't follow up on, you know what I say?

Yes. I agree with this, because videos are the truth.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Yes. I agree with this, because videos are the truth.[/QUOTE]
Republicans hear one thing and THATS HOW IT IS FROM NOW ON. REALITY CAN SUCK MY HARD, CONSERVATIVE PENIS.
 
Rather than make irrelavent points, why not point out what you believe is false in the video? Nope that would take too much of your time, why would you ever do such a thing right?
 
I kept watching it, thinking "you know, if someone pasted a "DAY 24: ATE A PUDDING CUP WITH PHIL SPECTOR" and then zoomed in on a black and white photograph of a pudding cup...

...

...someone would believe it and be pissed."

EDIT: I can't disprove that he had a pudding cup on day 24.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Rather than make irrelavent points, why not point out what you believe is false in the video? Nope that would take too much of your time, why would you ever do such a thing right?[/QUOTE]
Yes. Why bother? It doesn't seem worth my time, but alright.

It took two days for Bush to lift the Jones act to let foreign boats in...
Click to expand...
And another forever to actually do something worthwhile. Moot point, Ms. Hick

video of obama golfing subtitled "He's a little busy."
Click to expand...
I'll give them this. He probably shouldn't be spending his leisure time leisurely when there's a disaster in the gulf. Bush taught us that that is wrong.

"Lack of urgency?"
Click to expand...
Well, considering everyone was assuring him it would be taken care of quickly, urgency wasn't warranted at the time.

An incident of national significance. Really?
Click to expand...
Why yes, he appears to have realized that BP's shills aren't worth listening to.

HE TURNED DOWN FOREIGN AID OH fuck NO
Click to expand...
I'm sure it was all no-strings attached stuff, too. Still, I would of preferred the foreign aid. What are we up to, two points that the video has made amongst a stack of bullshit?

slideshow of Obama getting an award, giving a speech, and golfing.
Click to expand...
I'm sure there was something he, personally, could of been doing during this time, but again I'd have to say that leisure shouldn't be on the list during a disaster. Still, the video up-plays it immensely.

Obama saying "I can't dive down there and plug the hole. I can't suck it up with a straw."
Click to expand...
Ironically, this is a great point. There really isn't much the president, personally, could of been doing at the time to help. There isn't!

More videos of pundits going on about lack of response
Click to expand...
... Bleh.

Sponsored by RIGHTCHANGE!
Click to expand...
Sponsored by a Conservative group against everything Obama has ever done that alters their policy around opposing Obama. Neat!
 
[quote name='dorino']Yes. Why bother? It doesn't seem worth my time, but alright.

It took two days for Bush to lift the Jones act to let foreign boats in...
Click to expand...

And another forever to actually do something worthwhile. Moot point, Ms. Hick

[/QUOTE]


There ya go! Why is this a moot point though? If Bush lifted the Jones act, why was President Obama so against it, and quoting it as the reason he could not allow foreign aid? Is this not a reasonable question? How much less oil would be in the gulf if that foreign aid had been accepted?
 
[quote name='Knoell']There ya go! Why is this a moot point though? If Bush lifted the Jones act, why was President Obama so against it, and quoting it as the reason he could not allow foreign aid? Is this not a reasonable question?[/QUOTE]
That question wasn't posed in the video. The video just played on the lifting of the Jones act as if it was actually a worthwhile response. It wasn't.
 
[quote name='dorino']That question wasn't posed in the video. The video just played on the lifting of the Jones act as if it was actually a worthwhile response. It wasn't.[/QUOTE]

If the jones act was not the reason Obama turned down most aid and expertise offered by other countries, then what was it?

http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2010/06/09/oil-spill-why-did-obama-refuse-to-go-dutch/ Heres an article, where it says Obama clearly declined Dutch help, but is now accepting it. What is the reason for the delay?
 
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Tossin' aside that guise of concern about the "facts" of the video like a hooker tosses aside an article of clothing they wear for flair, are yeh, Knoell? Going straight into full-on conjecture mode now.

You righties are a bunch of fuckin' posers.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Tossin' aside that guise of concern about the "facts" of the video like a hooker tosses aside an article of clothing they wear for flair, are yeh, Knoell? Going straight into full-on conjecture mode now.

You righties are a bunch of fuckin' posers.[/QUOTE]

....conjecture? How is this not relavent? If Obama could have done ANYTHING to lessen the damage done in the gulf, but didn't is not worth looking into? You guys would be (and are) out for the heads for anyone at BP who could have prevented any part of the damage from when it exploded to today. Oh but I forgot, Obama doesn't have to help if he chooses not to because he didnt cause it, and is just the President of the United States.

Feel free to leave the BS posts out, and contribute.
 
policies and regulations that help companies proactively prevent...oh, i don't know...an oil rig from exploding, and the subsequent ignoring of those policies and procedures is EXACTLY the same as responding to a crisis.

Not the least of which was Deepwater *DELIBERATELY DISABLING* the alarm system: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/us/24hearings.html

Also, with the benefit of hindsight being 20/20, you neglect to realize that this explosion was minimized by BP in terms of impact since day one. A couple hundred barrels of oil per day, not a big deal. Your ability to recall what the world was like 3 months ago demonstrates why you're a Republican: because you can't remember what the world was like 3 months ago.

So you can listen to these jerks offs ask the white, toothless wal-mart crowd what they thought of the Jones Act because you're more interested in playing political assassination and maintaining the wealthy power elite's stranglehold on the US than you are about getting at the truth.

For further proof, let me ask you: whose political side is trying to continue offshore drilling while we investigate how this explosion/spill happened in the first place?

You simply have nothing. I mean, sure, you'll have a response, but you *got* nothin'. Why don't you search YouTube again for that next "smoking gun" of yours? Maybe Andrew Breitbart's page has some horseshit video of freshly clamped together fairy tales and conjecture that you can use to feel better about your dumbass worldview. I'd start with his page; seems reliable enough.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']....[/QUOTE]

I dont think your post had anything to do with foreign aid....none of it. Are you done crying? Now give me the reason we didn't except foreign aid in the first place? From day 1 everyone questioned BPs estimates of the oil, EVERYONE. If it was a few hundred barrells the Dutch would not have had to offer help. If this were Bush you guys would be all over him. Stop ranting and stay on the current topic.

Oh and you are a racist.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Stop ranting and stay on the current topic.[/QUOTE]

Can I have that number or a good explanation as to why I can't have that number now?

My topic predates the current topic.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I dont think your post had anything to do with foreign aid....none of it. Are you done crying? Now give me the reason we didn't except foreign aid in the first place?[/quote]

Foreign aid is always offered unconditionally.

Oh and you are a racist.
Click to expand...

based on what? my noting of the persons in the video? they were white. not my fault conservative groups don't talk to nonwhites.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Also, with the benefit of hindsight being 20/20, you neglect to realize that this explosion was minimized by BP in terms of impact since day one. A couple hundred barrels of oil per day, not a big deal. Your ability to recall what the world was like 3 months ago demonstrates why you're a Republican: because you can't remember what the world was like 3 months ago.[/QUOTE]
I'm torn on this. I remember my thought pattern being what I would do and what I thought Obama should do. I remember thinking I would completely take over all command and control, cleaning, and safety apparatus and sending BP a bill when it was over. Basically, a big "fuck em they're idiots anyway" to all the companies involved.

But then I thought that Obama couldn't do that. I remember thinking that he would be savaged politically for "nationalizing" the response (OMG SOCIALIZM!!!!) and would be taking any and all blame for the spill the moment he took it over. And since the government doesn't have a super duper response team and it would just be BP assets cleaning it anyway, maybe it made the most sense to let BP do it since in some alternate universe they're paid a bazillion dollars to have a fucking clue, so they might actually do better than a bureaucrat.

My first post was two days after the spill and I clearly didn't believe BP then. I have friends in the oil biz but I'm certainly not plugged in on some ethereal level. Did Obama believe BP? It appears so. But should he have? Should we hold him as the big POTUS to a higher standard than some Houston QQ nub? It's easy for me to blast away as if I know what I'm talking about on day 2, but did I get lucky or was it prima facie? And was the nationalism response better than the administration's?

I'm genuinely not sure. How would I react if it was Romney or McCain? Not sure, but would I be more critical? My first thought is yea.

Sorry. Didn't mean to ramble too much there, but I think there's open questions still.

Also, people should be going to jail for manslaughter. Mens rea all over these motherfuckers.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Can I have that number or a good explanation as to why I can't have that number now?

My topic predates the current topic.[/QUOTE]

You ended that topic back when you refused to explain your point. You lose. And it was my topic.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Foreign aid is always offered unconditionally.
[/QUOTE]

Then why did they wait nearly 7 weeks to start using the dutch ships that were offered 3 days after the leak started? Why don't you want an explanation for this? From what people are saying, it would have made a difference.
 
i was being sarcastic, numbskull.

if you think foreign aid is offered unconditionally, then you truly are of the intellectual capacity to give that video credence.

speed, i agree with you on the nationalizing BP aspect, but figured that, given HCRA and looming financial reform, Obama the so-called socialist wouldn't actually instill socialist policies.
 
I didnt need an official explanation for that. This is what you get with a small government that leaves corporations in charge.

BP thought, or at least they got the government to think that the spill wouldnt be so bad and/or they would be able to kill it early with a string of failed solutions. They also dont want it cleaned up in any way that indicates how much there actually is. They want it dispersed.
 
[quote name='Knoell']You ended that topic back when you refused to explain your point. You lose. And it was my topic.[/QUOTE]

Sorry. You started a topic about trains costing more than cars. I used your data and some more to prove trains cost 1/4 as much as cars.

You called bullshit. I asked for what you thought the correct number was. You started ducking.

I haven't even calculated the cost of cars versus the cost of trains.

An intelligent person wouldn't argue a conclusion has been reached before a discussion has truly started.

Then again, you're Knoell.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Then why did they wait nearly 7 weeks to start using the dutch ships that were offered 3 days after the leak started? Why don't you want an explanation for this? From what people are saying, it would have made a difference.[/QUOTE]

Why haven't you grasped the obvious pattern yet?

The leftist playbook dictates that when criticized, never address the individual points of criticism, instead - fire a flare: deflect and point fingers at what you consider something worse.

That's about all that goes on around here anymore.

It also amazes me that you still insist on arguing with someone that actually believes one party is less in bed with big corporations than the other, or at the very least believes Unions are less corrupt.
 
So, has the Jones Act really prevented the US from enlisting foreign help in the Gulf cleanup? Doesn't seem so. On June 15, Adm. Thad Allen, the Coast Guard's point man on the disaster, issued a press release noting that there are already 15 foreign-flagged ships working the spill—the act only applies to ships operating within three miles of shore, and there's plenty of work to be done outside that boundary.
"While we have not seen any need to waive the Jones Act as part of this historic response, we continue to prepare for all possible scenarios," Allen said. "Should any waivers be needed, we are prepared to process them as quickly as possible to allow vital spill response activities being undertaken by foreign-flagged vessels to continue without delay." He added that no foreign entities have even requested a waiver—which can be granted if no suitable American vessels are available.
Click to expand...

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/06/jones-act-bp-spill
 
I wish we'd put some more conditions on our foreign aid.

#1 - You cannot use this money to attack US citizens, property, land or any of our allies.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Why haven't you grasped the obvious pattern yet?

The leftist playbook dictates that when criticized, never address the individual points of criticism, instead - fire a flare: deflect and point fingers at what you consider something worse.

That's about all that goes on around here anymore.

It also amazes me that you still insist on arguing with someone that actually believes one party is less in bed with big corporations than the other, or at the very least believes Unions are less corrupt.[/QUOTE]

As sick as it sounds, I enjoy it.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Sorry. You started a topic about trains costing more than cars. I used your data and some more to prove trains cost 1/4 as much as cars.

You called bullshit. I asked for what you thought the correct number was. You started ducking.

I haven't even calculated the cost of cars versus the cost of trains.

An intelligent person wouldn't argue a conclusion has been reached before a discussion has truly started.

Then again, you're Knoell.[/QUOTE]

You must have missed my post that says although trains are subsidized less, the miles that it takes a person offsets that. You either ignored it, or missed it, or discounted it without a discussion. Regardless thats where the conversation ended, I don't waste my time making up false numbers, you go ahead and have a ball with it though.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']i was being sarcastic, numbskull.

if you think foreign aid is offered unconditionally, then you truly are of the intellectual capacity to give that video credence.

speed, i agree with you on the nationalizing BP aspect, but figured that, given HCRA and looming financial reform, Obama the so-called socialist wouldn't actually instill socialist policies.[/QUOTE]


Darn those conditions, but since we are using them now, I guess we deemed it worth it? Honestly I'd be curious to know what those conditions would be.

It is a wonder how a lack of intelligence about stuff, makes the President immune to any criticism about something. I guess that is the way it goes though, that is the job of the people around our politicians after all. Shift the blame, and distance them from it.

[quote name='IRHari']http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/06/jones-act-bp-spill[/QUOTE]

Sorry about the triple post but like I said before, if the Jones Act was not the reason we denied the Dutch aid 3 days after the explosion then why did we deny it? I'm assuming mykevermin believes the conditions were probably too strict, or at the time being they claimed the leak was too small. I would like to know what these conditions were, and I highly doubt the dutch would offer so much help for such a small leak.
 
[quote name='IRHari']http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/06/jones-act-bp-spill[/QUOTE]

Sorry about the triple post but like I said before, if the Jones Act was not the reason we denied the Dutch aid 3 days after the explosion then why did we deny it? I'm assuming mykevermin believes the conditions were probably too strict, or at the time being they claimed the leak was too small. I would like to know what these conditions were, and I highly doubt the dutch would offer so much help for such a small leak.
 
[quote name='Knoell']You must have missed my post that says although trains are subsidized less, the miles that it takes a person offsets that. You either ignored it, or missed it, or discounted it without a discussion. Regardless thats where the conversation ended, I don't waste my time making up false numbers, you go ahead and have a ball with it though.[/QUOTE]

Do you have friends?

Do you have access to a printer?

Do you know how to copy and paste?

EDIT: Wait. You're claiming trains are subsidized less now?

EDIT 2: Do you mean post #681?
"According to the United States Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, rail and mass transit are considerably more subsidized on a per passenger-mile basis by the federal government than other forms of transportation;"

You can't even keep your fucking argument straight!
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I guess if a person argues both sides of an argument, said person is bound to win.[/QUOTE]

But if they merely bluster and stammer, they are not.
 
Done. Knoell please stop.

And thrust, we know everyone is corrupt. That doesn't mean we can't think the idea behind unions was just. That doesn't mean we can't think the idea behind affirmative action was just.

I think you want to hate on Obama for the spill as much as we hated on Bush for Katrina. I'm not quite sure how you can really equate the two.
 
[quote name='depascal22']
I think you want to hate on Obama for the spill as much as we hated on Bush for Katrina. I'm not quite sure how you can really equate the two.[/QUOTE]

To be perfectly honest I am not that angry at Obama for the spill. Nor was I that angry at Bush about Katrina. They both made mistakes, but they were mistakes that I believe didn't have a lot to do with the outcome.

I think Obama made some really really bad PR moves in the first month or so of the spill, but I also don't think he could have done much differently if he had a time machine to make much of a difference, other than show up and make his trademark speeches to make the locals feel better.
 
I want to build a factory to run for all the blue collar folks in the US who hate unions.

Let's roll back all that socialist bullshit like weekends, overtime, living wages, health benefits, and safety standards. Give y'all the jungle you're looking for. Hate unions? Come find out what it would be like to work without them.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Do you have friends?

Do you have access to a printer?

Do you know how to copy and paste?

EDIT: Wait. You're claiming trains are subsidized less now?

EDIT 2: Do you mean post #681?
"According to the United States Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, rail and mass transit are considerably more subsidized on a per passenger-mile basis by the federal government than other forms of transportation;"

You can't even keep your fucking argument straight![/QUOTE]
Did you click on the link and read the god damn wiki article? Maybe if you did you would know why it says that. God damn you need to get your story straight with this train thing.

Again I will say, Trains are subsidized less but that is canceled out by the fact that on that subsidization a car will take you more miles per dollar than a train will. Read the article.

Proponents point out that the government heavily subsidizes the Interstate Highway System, the Federal Aviation Administration, many airports, among many aspects of passenger aviation. Massive government aid to those forms of travel was a primary factor in the decline of passenger service on privately owned railroads in the 1950s and 1960s. In addition, Amtrak pays property taxes (through fees to host railroads) that highway users do not pay. Advocates therefore assert that Amtrak should only be expected to be as self-sufficient as those competing modes of transit.
Along these lines, in a June 2008 interview with Reuters,[57] Amtrak President Alex Kummant made specific observations: $10 billion per year is transferred from the general fund to the Highway Trust Fund; $2.7 billion is granted to the FAA; $8 billion goes to "security and life safety for cruise ships." Overall, Kummant claims that Amtrak receives $40 in federal funds per passenger, while highways are subsidized at a rate of $500–$700 per automobile. Moreover, Amtrak provides all of its own security, while airport security is a separate federal subsidy. Kummant added: "Let's not even get into airport construction which is a miasma of state, federal and local tax breaks and tax refinancing and God knows what."
Click to expand...

OK that sounds alot like what you are saying, now get ready for it....ready?
According to the United States Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, rail and mass transit are considerably more subsidized on a per passenger-mile basis by the federal government than other forms of transportation; the subsidy varies year to year, but exceeds $100 dollars (in 2000 dollars) per thousand passenger-miles, compared to subsidies around $10 per thousand passenger-miles for aviation (with general aviation subsidized considerably more per passenger-mile than commercial aviation), subsidies around $4 per thousand passenger-miles for intercity buses, and automobiles being a small net contributor through the gas tax and other user fees rather than being subsidized.[75] On a total subsidy basis, aviation, with many more passenger-miles per year, is subsidized at a similar level to Amtrak. The analysis does not consider social costs and benefits, or difficult to quantify effects of some regulation, such as safety regulation.
Click to expand...

Just ignore it again, its ok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top