Latest Furor: Idiot Barton by Niki2

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

The man needs to buy a bumper sticker.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2010 4:57 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Sadly, Barton is from Texas. We're deeply shamed by him.

It's ironic: If Obama isn't a hard-ass, he gets tagged for not being tough enough on BP. If he takes a hard line, idiot Republicans like Barton feel like they have to go 'round and make nice with BP and apologize for their President's imprudence.

As much hay as Republicans tried to make of Obama's campaign contributions from BP, I've yet to hear one of them voice much indignation at Barton's being the biggest receiver of oil company money in the House of Representatives.

Mike

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2010 9:00 PM

i completely agree mr Barton

the president is not a judge, hes not a jury- and he sure isnt the executioner. we have courts of law that deal with these things. if this were on a smaller scale, BP would be held liable through the courts- so why is this different? do you realize the precedent youre setting?

the focus should be on plugging the whole, period- no matter whos in charge. the damages , reparations and obligations can always be calculated later. and after following an investivation, if BP is found criminally negligent, then they will pay the price, but only then! no one has the right to presume anyone else guilty until proven innocent. while none of us may have a single doubt that BP is repsponsible, lets see what the total tally comes to before jumping to conclusions? many Americans have a vested interest in BP, and im sure this wasnt intentional

id like to know why the government set a liablity cap of 75 million? and why we're approving permits so far out to sea, meanwhile restricting access to oil on land, that would be far more, in this instance, accessable(and thereby containable)?

what we get out of our leadership is wasted time and money lambasting and putting on this political show and usurpation of law, consistiting of indimidation towards oil companies. i mean.. this disaster is being made worse by politicans who are incapable of acting competently towards anything. foreign countries offered us help and we turned them down.. why? our goal should have been working TOGETHER to help solve the problem from the get go

putting a moratorium on deep water exploration is a terrible idea! we all know you green socialists want to use this mess as a means to push your Cap and Trade agenda. but get real already.. the 20th century wouldnt have existed without oil, coal and other so called 'fossil fuels'. should we regress 200 years to satisfy you peole? i cant afford a solar car, can you? probably not, because they dont even exist yet. so leave me the hell alone already. if alternative energies were available, dont you think we would have them? we still are the most affluent country in the world, we would have them, if they were there.

this is diabolical whats happening here. this is purely about politics, perception and coercion- and people who resent and have contempt for liberty and freedom of self determination are behind it. thats my opinion

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2010 9:05 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Anti: Because the law is written by and for corporations?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2010 10:10 PM

you're right.. the law, which means people within government, using government, to commit fraud. thats why im saying.. we must shift our view of government in a way that promotes liberty, and denies those who would use government to further their own private interests. don't you agree? in essence, government 'regulations' are counterproductive, they serve only the special interests

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 19, 2010 12:18 AM

WHOZIT

Since BP and it's bigshots are big donors to Barry and the Democrats, I hope they get fucked in the ass really bad. Plus the more damage they do to BP the more damage they do to the UK, alot of Brits have there pentions invested in BP, Barry's not as loved there as he used to be. Barton just said what he thought, Barry & BP are the ones doing the REAL damage, but you libs STILL love Barry and if BP gave you alot of money you'd love them too

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 19, 2010 12:33 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

So we should abandon the concept of the rule of law, just to appease the angry mob ?

BP isn't getting out of this, not by a long shot. But rapists and serial killers, as much as they are loathed and hated, are treated with more adherence to the law than this administration is showing towards BP.

That's not "siding" with the free market, Big Oil, or BP, that's just stating a fact.

Quote:
Friday, June 18, 2010
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)
(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told CNSNews.com he does "not know that" President Barack Obama had the constitutional authority to tell BP to surrender its stockholders' money into an escrow account outside the company's control that would be used to pay damages to victims of the Gulf oil spill. Moreover, Nelson said the constitutional question was “not going to get answered” because BP agreed to Obama’s demand.

Quote:
We live in a Constitutional Republic. The President's job under the Constitution is to enforce the laws made by the elected Congress. His job is not to create new laws and enforce them all by himself. His job is as magistrate under the Constitution, not as Caudillo. He is not the law. He is supposed to enforce what Congress decides.
The BP behavior is reminiscent of how, immediately after assuming office, Mr. Obama, with no Congressional authority or administrative allowance, simply made a phone call to fire the head of GM. When I called the White House press office to ask under what law or regulation Mr. Obama was acting, I was told he did not need a law. If the government put a lot of money into GM, it could call the shots at GM, I was told. But under what authority, I asked. "None needed," was the final answer.
Without any new legislation, President Obama has used returned TARP money as a political slush fund to prop up favorite industries. This is the same problem: serious executive action without legislative authority.
The same goes for Mr. Obama's demand that BP pay the lost wages of oil and gas workers suspended from work because of the moratorium on Gulf of Mexico underseas drilling. There simply was no legislation allowing this kind of specific demand. Mr. Obama's demand was in the nature of a threat, more than a Constitutional act.
Of course, every President tries "jawboning" to restrain steel company price increases or something similar. But to create specific enactments and actions without any authority -- now Mr. Obama's specialty -- is so at odds with the law of the land that it terrifies me. These are not the acts of a teacher on Constitutional law. These are the acts of a big city boss or a third world dictator. If you want to know why business has pulled in its horns and hunkered down, and why people at tea parties and elsewhere are scared, look no further than Barack "I Am The Law" Obama.
Is there anyone in Congress to stop him? Is there anyone in a black robe to stop him? Or is everyone already too scared to challenge the Duce in the White House? - Ben Stein

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/16/the-caudillo-president

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 19, 2010 1:02 AM

WHOZIT

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
So we should abandon the concept of the rule of law, just to appease the angry mob ?

BP isn't getting out of this, not by a long shot. But rapists and serial killers, as much as they are loathed and hated, are treated with more adherence to the law than this administration is showing towards BP.

That's not "siding" with the free market, Big Oil, or BP, that's just stating a fact.

Quote:
Friday, June 18, 2010
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)
(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told CNSNews.com he does "not know that" President Barack Obama had the constitutional authority to tell BP to surrender its stockholders' money into an escrow account outside the company's control that would be used to pay damages to victims of the Gulf oil spill. Moreover, Nelson said the constitutional question was “not going to get answered” because BP agreed to Obama’s demand.

Quote:
We live in a Constitutional Republic. The President's job under the Constitution is to enforce the laws made by the elected Congress. His job is not to create new laws and enforce them all by himself. His job is as magistrate under the Constitution, not as Caudillo. He is not the law. He is supposed to enforce what Congress decides.
The BP behavior is reminiscent of how, immediately after assuming office, Mr. Obama, with no Congressional authority or administrative allowance, simply made a phone call to fire the head of GM. When I called the White House press office to ask under what law or regulation Mr. Obama was acting, I was told he did not need a law. If the government put a lot of money into GM, it could call the shots at GM, I was told. But under what authority, I asked. "None needed," was the final answer.
Without any new legislation, President Obama has used returned TARP money as a political slush fund to prop up favorite industries. This is the same problem: serious executive action without legislative authority.
The same goes for Mr. Obama's demand that BP pay the lost wages of oil and gas workers suspended from work because of the moratorium on Gulf of Mexico underseas drilling. There simply was no legislation allowing this kind of specific demand. Mr. Obama's demand was in the nature of a threat, more than a Constitutional act.
Of course, every President tries "jawboning" to restrain steel company price increases or something similar. But to create specific enactments and actions without any authority -- now Mr. Obama's specialty -- is so at odds with the law of the land that it terrifies me. These are not the acts of a teacher on Constitutional law. These are the acts of a big city boss or a third world dictator. If you want to know why business has pulled in its horns and hunkered down, and why people at tea parties and elsewhere are scared, look no further than Barack "I Am The Law" Obama.
Is there anyone in Congress to stop him? Is there anyone in a black robe to stop him? Or is everyone already too scared to challenge the Duce in the White House? - Ben Stein

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/16/the-caudillo-president

Taking over 2 car companys, the banks, student loans, helthcare system, a slush fund called a stimulus bill, BARRY CAN'T BE STOPPED!

Obama: The Thing that can't be stopped! "In 3-D"

Note; Not in theaters, but on TV EVERY FUCKING DAY!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 19, 2010 1:51 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Note: Not in theaters, but on TV EVERY FUCKING DAY!

We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.

No inconvenience, what so ever. As I said, I got no use for..... private messaging some.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 19, 2010 2:33 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
you're right.. the law, which means people within government, using government, to commit fraud. thats why im saying.. we must shift our view of government in a way that promotes liberty, and denies those who would use government to further their own private interests. don't you agree? in essence, government 'regulations' are counterproductive, they serve only the special interests

Hello,

Regulation certainly failed here, and in a big way. What is your counter-proposal?

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 19, 2010 2:54 AM

Can't most criminals generally post bail and remain free until their trial is concluded?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:52 AM

This is strange, a few days ago we all universally agreed that retroactive legislation was basically a form of vendetta mob rule totalitarianism, I'm somewhat surprised that anyone here would not agree that Barton is factually correct, which also agreeing that he is a corrupt dick wad. I'm sure no one wants to be associated with him right now

I mean, seriously, we have two issues here

1) the law, about which barton is correct, this is fairly absurd.
2) BP which is pretty dickish, and doesn't need to be coddled.

You cant have arbitrary justice, and you also can't have BP attacking the coastline, damaging everyone's property, etc. I think the legal recourse already exists tho, and the govt actually *can* step in and prevent BP from rigging the cases, in fact, it could be rapidly ratcheted up to a supreme court case where someone could decide that polluting someone elses land required compensation and cleanup.

But I'm more worried about BP getting something for it's 20 billion, because I know it has to be getting something, or they wouldn't be so happy to do it.

I see the GOP made Barton "un-apologize"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:59 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I would not support retroactive legislation. However, BP is smart to surrender to the President's request.

Because there is a hell of a lot of non-retroactive legislation that could get more than 20 Billion from BP.

Essentially, if BP didn't show a willingness to pay beyond its (comparatively) paltry millions in legal liabilities, I'd expect to see a new tax or ten voted through congress to institute a Federal assistance fund. This tax, like all taxes, would be eternal. And hence, BP and perhaps all oil companies have a lot more to lose than 20 Billion.

From what I can see, 20 Billion is a sweetheart deal, and oughta leave them grinning when compared to the alternatives. I'm sure both BP and the bought-out politicians are very glad that this incident can be gotten out of so cheaply. Just a few harsh words and a drop in the proverbial bucket. Then lots of talk of industry reform, and new agencies to watch everything carefully, and everyone has something on their political scorecards for re-election.

Win-Win-Win... well, except for the Gulf. They lose.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:28 AM

Not to mention that this way, they also get to hold onto their U.S. oil leases and keep their contracts to supply the U.S. Defense Department, the largest single procurer of petroleum products on the planet.

I still think their U.S. assets should have been put into receivership or seized, as has been done to countries like Iran and Iraq in the past, effectively putting a lien on them, so that *IF* they try to declare bankruptcy and change their name so they can continue the same bad behavior, the U.S. government (and the associated claims for damages incurred from this disaster) would get first claim on every dollar from assets liquidated.

This wasn't a "shakedown" or a holdup; it was a negotiation. BP *CHOSE* to put up the escrow account. They didn't *have* to, but then again, we don't HAVE to let them drill here or sell here, do we?

Mike

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:35 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Precisely, Mike. For BP to stick ~ 2 Billion into an escrow account every quarter is their best bet. They didn't fight it because they KNEW it was their best bet.

It was even structured in such a way as to put minimal strain on the company. Why anyone would see this as a shakedown or alternatively as a sneaky trade is beyond me. The deal is right out in the open. The benefits of compliance are obvious. They were only too happy to do this, when faced with the multitude of odious alternatives.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 19, 2010 5:39 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Moreover, Nelson said the constitutional question was “not going to get answered” because BP agreed to Obama’s demand.

This.

It's not a constitutional issue unless someone involved makes it one. Until that point it's all consensual. That's the American system, love it or leave it.

Hello, this situation is unprecedented. BP has endangered the freakin' Atlantic Ocean, quite possibly destroyed the economies of multiple gulf states. This kinda thing is well beyond "punishment." It is more in the realm of an accidental nuclear detonation or an inadvertent act of war. They simply gotta do something about that. And Obama, as the Commander in Chief and representative of us all, made a deal with them that included 20 billion for the folks whose lives BP has manifestly destroyed. 20 billion dollars which is a freakin' drop in the bucket (har har) for BP.

Nothing legal/illegal has happened here. But the Republicans absolutely MUST continue to beat their drum into the ground and claim this is more "redistribution of wealth" and "evil socialism." Christ, that should be funny but it's just not.

Y'know, there's crimes against humanity, but a thing like this is a crime OF humanity. This is what the human species gets for simply not growing the eff up and being good citizens of the planet. There's nothing to suggest that an identical mini-geddon won't happen tomorrow in the North China Sea or anywhere else. People will do things on the cheap, we'll cut corners, we'll thumb our noses at regulation when nobody's lookin', we'll gladly take something for nothing. The human race, or at least our elected representatives and captains of industry and every last goverment and corporate drone who follows their dubious "lead" have decided to eschew wisdom in favor of--what? An easy buck? Drinking and whoring when there's real work to be done? Being liked instead of respected?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 19, 2010 5:55 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Amazing. As I said, I'm surprised people continue to amaze me.

This wasn't done by "law". This was an agreement entered into by two parties; BP wasn't "legally bound" to do anything. YOu free-enterprise guys; why wouldn't one party (the US government) be free to negotiate a settlement out of court? Why wouldn't they have the right to say "you broke the laws and regulations. Unless you do something to ensure us you will pay for the cleanup, we won't lt you drill in our country anymore"? If that was even said.

Basically, pressure was put on BP, they agreed. The idea that it was manipulated pressure, public pressure if you will, should be perfectly alright with people who believe in free enterprise, I don't know why "law" is being brought into all this. No "law" was enforced; nobody's done anything retroactively to attack the $75 million cap. BP has WILLINGLY (albeit under pressure) agreed to set up an escrow account.

If free enterprise reigns, then "we" are free to use any means within the law to pressure the company that disregarded our regulations. If someone trashes an apartment and breaks the contract they made with the landlord, isn't the landlord free to pressure them, under threat of eviction, to clean up the apartment and tone down the noise? How is it about the law anyway?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the response, given that no logic seems to come into these discussions. It become all about legal quibbles and hampering of free enterprise, yet it was done in a free-enterprise manner.

Tell me exactly which laws are involved in a private agreement between the government and a contractor who has broken their contract in myriad ways and is being held responsible?

Aside from legalities; if they were left to their own devices, there is absolutely NO guarantee they would pay their full share. The people of Prince William Sound DID have to sue, pay the legal fees to continue the suit (those who didn't drop out because they didn't) and wait up to twenty years to get whatever they could...some are still waiting. THAT's using the law. BP could have chosen to go that way if they'd wanted to; they didn't.

As to the Republicans not speaking up, that's not true. Numerous Republicans have spoken up to denounce Barton's statement; Behner pulled him in privately and TOLD him to apologize. Some Republicans have agreed with this or that part of the statement, some are pushing it (like what's-her-face), but to say free enterprise is being "strong-armed" is a fallacy and just politispeak talking points to try and uphold an ideology which is at odds with what actually happened, it seems to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 19, 2010 5:57 AM

It's clearly a sweetheart deal and BP seems to love it, but I highly doubt they would lose a lawsuit or get taxes imposed upon them, so I assume this is about their right to drill of the US shore. Just getting the US govt to have a vested interest in their success seems like a good idea, but BP isn't paying for anything that does not have immediate payoff.

Remember, one of the things about a corporation is that it continues long passed its current membership. This is why there is a next quarter focus on profits. The execs might leave at any time. Sure, even if there were new taxes, while they could amount tk a lot, they wouldn't do so to today's BP, and Tony would be long gone before they would. Corporations like governments feel no qualms about shoving financial problems off to future generations, because the people running it will high tail it out of there before it comes due.

But BP isn't just frugal for maximum greed, their frugal to the point of total idiocy, which is how they go to where they are, so I don't see them doing the long term projection that you just did. I think they'd only go for the deal if it would increase the current execs golden parachutes, the expanse of their overall empire, or huge payoffs to the major shareholders in the short term.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 19, 2010 6:02 AM

Niki

The US govt wasn't about to win a lawsuit with BP for over 20 billion and actually get paid because BP could easily shuffle their finances overseas. I think the concern here is that the admin cut a al with BP, and it turns out that they can be bought for $20 billion. I'm not able to parse why this happened yet, I'm just prepared to see a lot of forehead slapping when the admin takes dumbfoundingly pro-bp stances over the coming years, that will be able to retroactively prove why this deal went through and what it meant.

And your right that the republicans handed his head to him, and rightfully so.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 19, 2010 6:04 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Cavalier and DT are ight:

Quote:
It's not a constitutional issue unless someone involved makes it one. Until that point it's all consensual. That's the American system, love it or leave it.

Nothing legal/illegal has happened here. But the Republicans absolutely MUST continue to beat their drum into the ground and claim this is more "redistribution of wealth" and "evil socialism." Christ, that should be funny but it's just not.

That’s it in a nutshell. To make it about legalities, which aren’t a part of it, is exactly the above, and exactly what’s happening here.

And yes, Cav, it SHOULD be funny, but it’s incredibly sad to see the need to phrase it as something it’s not just to find a flaw about which to complain

DT is right, too

Quote:
I assume this is about their right to drill of the US shore. Just getting the US govt to have a vested interest in their success seems like a good idea, but BP isn't paying for anything that does not have immediate payoff.

That may well be the case, so it was in BP’s interest to make a downpayment. It’s essentially an “out of court settlement”...are our RWAs saying THAT’s not legitimate in private enterprise?

I hope you're wrong, DT; only time will tell. Time will also tell if BP pays BEYOND that $20 billion, which is just a downpayment, in reality, and everyone knows it. Those two things will be proven or disproven in time; we can only wait to see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 20, 2010 10:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

Regulation certainly failed here, and in a big way. What is your counter-proposal?

--Anthony

one of the few legitimate purposes of government, is to protect the liberties and property of Americans. in the same way the government would protect your property rights from your neighbors pollution, the government should also protect the collective property rights of people, such as in the gulf coast from the oil spill. the party responsible is always liable for the costs- however assessed. i dont think anyone would dispute that much

as for the enforcement side of safe drilling, i think private regulators would be more effective. maybe something like a J.D.Powers or Consumer Reports could provide the safety inspections. clearly, investors have a stake in the viability of these rigs- its a mutual interest shared by everyone. the government should focus on basic property rights, and act through the courts based on the data collected privately. this is how it works with products on the market, and the recall process- when something is dangerous or defective it gets recalled.

the deep water horizon should haven been recalled, it had some issues, which have resulted in massive liberty and property right violations. in the future, it may benefit a company to get a 'J.D.Powers' approved safety and environmental rating. government simply is not capable of doing these things as effectively as the private sector, it's just the reality of it all

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 20, 2010 11:19 AM

Niki,

I will say that its not legit private enterprise because its corporatism. Any time you have the mixing of private and federal dollars, it's corporatism. We've seen a lot of this lately, through the last ssveral presidents, but accelerating during the time vie been on this forum, like say, bushs second term, and now we have a lot of these crossed interests. I worry that when interests are crossed they end up with a united goal of achieving market control and profit monopoly.

HK

I'm in no way saying that BP should not have to fork over 20 billion, but they were more than happy to fork it over in this particuar way, in fact, they didn't even flinch. They were fighting small settlements of property owners like it was armageddon, but they have no resistance to shelling out twenty billion? Something is wrong with this picture. Just say my spider sense is tingling.

My short guess, they gained legal access to more than twenty billion in oil, because that's the only thing I think they would buy for $20B. Maybe legal immunity for themselves and their claims to US oil. Whatever it was, it was apparently worth the price for BP, and worth it today, not two years downt he road. I gotta be thinking that Tony has gotta be thinking that the rest of the shareholders at BP have gotta be thinking that they might want someone else as CEO some time real soon. He has to cook up his golden parachute getaway car pronto. I'm thinking that he's doing that right now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 20, 2010 11:35 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
Taking over 2 car companys, the banks, student loans, helthcare system, a slush fund called a stimulus bill, BARRY CAN'T BE STOPPED!

WHOA! A president that gets shit done! What are we gonna do?!

"legal process?" One can only imagine how long that would take... how long before folks in the gulf get some, ANY kind of compensation that way?? Obama? Bam! 20 Billion.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 20, 2010 11:48 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
clearly, investors have a stake in the viability of these rigs- its a mutual interest shared by everyone.

If that were true, this would never have happened. This is the Libertarian flaw. "Viability" in terms of turning a profit has nothing to do with "viability" in terms of taking appropriate safety precautions or protecting the environment--UNLESS, of course, you're thinking very long term. But profit is simply not a long term idea. In fact, profit will inevitably take a significant hit if corporations do everything necessary to assure safety to personnel, the environment, and future generations.

The oil industry, from its inception, has been a notoriously unsafe business. The men who bankroll such enterprises are not the most cautious of businessmen and the men who work the rigs are not overly concerned with personal safety--if they were, they'd choose another line o' work.

And at no point do the folks who are most interested in profiting from the oil industry, take environmental impact seriously. In your world, AM, who is gonna take environmental impact into consideration? Who's gonna value a single pelican more than a barrel of oil?

And at what point does a capitalist enterprise cease being a business and become something on the order of a nation state? It's one thing for a business to impinge on the lives a few thousand people when they poison a stream, but when a business's actions can destroy the livelihoods of millions, destroy the economies of multiple states or even countries HOW are we to litigate such a thing?

It's like taking someone to civil court for an act of war.

This oil spill is a vastly more effective act of terrorism than 9/11 could ever hope to be. Isn't it ironic that the perpetrators of this colossal act of terrorism had not intended to cripple the economy of the Gulf States?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 20, 2010 4:42 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

" government simply is not capable of doing these things as effectively as the private sector, it's just the reality of it all"

Hello,

So, in fact, you are in favor of stronger regulation. You simply feel that the government should hire 3rd party corporations to perform the regulating... with the government having the ultimate authority to drop the proverbial hammer on violators.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 20, 2010 5:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
Taking over 2 car companys, the banks, student loans, helthcare system, a slush fund called a stimulus bill, BARRY CAN'T BE STOPPED!

WHOA! A president that gets shit done! What are we gonna do?!

"legal process?" One can only imagine how long that would take... how long before folks in the gulf get some, ANY kind of compensation that way?? Obama? Bam! 20 Billion.

Bingo. And if the Valdez is any kind of yardstick to measure by, it would be 20 years or more before anyone got a nickel out of BP.

And yeah, WhoZit, when you put it like that, you make Obama look like the most effective President since LBJ at actually getting shit done and getting bills passed into law!

"I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2010 5:59 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

DT:

Quote:
Any time you have the mixing of private and federal dollars, it's corporatism

I agree, to an extent, but there are many corporations out there which are not mixed with federal dollars. Just a point. Certainly in this case it's been true, and will continue to be--hopefully less so if they get MMS un-screwed-up and we have some proper regulation. I definitely believe regulation will improve, whatever else happens.

Cavalier summed it up BEAUTIFULLY for me, and Anthony: EXCELLENT point!! That gets right to the heart of the matter...I'd like to hear an answer to that one? And if so, what's to keep the "overseers" from being in collusion?

Something left out of the equation here. What if, say, Obama told BP to put that money in escrow or else BP would lose its rights to drill in the US? It would seem to me a case could be made (especially given the circumstances) that they obviated their contracts many times over, and legal ways could be found to oust them--there are plenty of oil companies would could be given the business, with no loss to us.

Put in those terms, given our close relationship with Britain and the ease of working here (tho' I hope it becomes LESS easy), and given it's not that much money to them in the greater scheme of things, why wouldn't that be incentive enough for BP to acquiesce?

Exxon didn't face the same thing because the Valdez was a true "spill", probably human error, and not so big--plus we HAVE got a pro-oil government. But this is so huge, and so wide spread, that it seems to me it might be a good argument to be made and have a lot of impact in BP's decision. I don't think it has to be a collusion, I think it's perfectly logical.

Sometimes I think people are far to quick to see a conspiracy...you know that's my attitude. This seems like an Occam's Razor argument to me, and the first one that would occur to the administration. JMHO

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2010 6:16 AM

Quote:

Something left out of the equation here. What if, say, Obama told BP to put that money in escrow or else BP would lose its rights to drill in the US? It would seem to me a case could be made (especially given the circumstances) that they obviated their contracts many times over, and legal ways could be found to oust them--there are plenty of oil companies would could be given the business, with no loss to us.

This is already easy to do. They violated their contracts, and are in material breach of said contracts. Also, they lied to Congress.

BP officials said in their paperwork - and testified to Congress to the same effect - when applying for rights to drill in these deepwater locations that they were fully prepared (and had needed equipment at the ready and staged for deployment) to handle any spill, even in excess of 250,000 barrels per day. They weren't, they aren't, they never were, they never will be... so they lied to Congress, and they lied in their applications, both of which are criminal matters. (Just ask Bill Clinton!)

So... We have BP by the short-n-curlies. They know it; we know it. $20 billion is cheap for them. It *could* have been $20 billion PLUS loss of all rights to drill, refine, sell, etc., here in the U.S.A., or to any of our overseas facilities.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 10:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
clearly, investors have a stake in the viability of these rigs- its a mutual interest shared by everyone.

If that were true, this would never have happened. This is the Libertarian flaw. "Viability" in terms of turning a profit has nothing to do with "viability" in terms of taking appropriate safety precautions or protecting the environment--UNLESS, of course, you're thinking very long term. But profit is simply not a long term idea. In fact, profit will inevitably take a significant hit if corporations do everything necessary to assure safety to personnel, the environment, and future generations.

i just disagree. do you think this mess with the Deep Water Horizon is good for BP? i bet BP and TransOcean would have spent the money, in hindsight, to prevent this horrible mess from happening to begin with. nevermind that government and oil companies were involved in an incestuous relationship that caused this disaster

the basic principles are competition and property rights- competition among investors, among regulators, among insureres, etc. the fishing rights of many people were violated, so the contract with BP for drilling should have been with them, the essential property owners. that could have atleast secured liabilities for damages. its possible the fisherman would never have approved the contract, knowing what a enormous risk drilling that far out was. would that not have been preferable, rather then putting the federal government in charge and creating an artificial cap of 75 million- which is a pittance for the long term damage of this travesty?

Quote:
The oil industry, from its inception, has been a notoriously unsafe business. The men who bankroll such enterprises are not the most cautious of businessmen and the men who work the rigs are not overly concerned with personal safety--if they were, they'd choose another line o' work. at no point do the folks who are most interested in profiting from the oil industry, take environmental impact seriously. In your world, AM, who is gonna take environmental impact into consideration? Who's gonna value a single pelican more than a barrel of oil?

let me ask you a question- are you more protective of your own property, or the public property across the street? unless you are a particularly altruistic person, probably your own, any day of the week. this simple concept is born out every day of the week, if you are just conscious enough to glance around the more urban areas, and ask why there is so much more visible trash and pollution. who had license over the waters in the gulf, but the federal government?? BP never should have been given license to drill there to begin with. but because of our dependence and reliance on central authorities and regulators, this was allowed to happen..

we have given these responsibilities up to an unaccountable, inefficient beauracracy. instead we should acknowledges our rights and responsibilites as sovereign entities on this earth. you know you cant steal, murder or commit fraud- that's a principle we all must be forced to acknowledge. if a company commmits these injustices, they should also be held liable. my problem is the government and corporations, cooperating in a way that usurps the rights of others, as is the case in the gulf spill. just as it benefits a food vendor or parts manufacturer to produce something viable and efficient, not defective in any way which may harm or inhibit the liberty of another, so should it for oil companies.

the government is what has created this so-called 'moral hazard', when in essence the tax payer is given the final responsibility for any failure or consequence of risk taken by whatever entity. this is what happened during the TARP, Freddy/Fanny, GM/AIG bailouts, the healthcare bill, and now as evidenced, with our subsidies of oil companies. its a completely incestous and illogical system, and it will fail us and lead us to misery. for you darwinists out there, failure is what purges the weak from the system- true economics consists of purging the weak from the system- it is survival of the fittest for the benefit of all.

Quote:

And at what point does a capitalist enterprise cease being a business and become something on the order of a nation state? It's one thing for a business to impinge on the lives a few thousand people when they poison a stream, but when a business's actions can destroy the livelihoods of millions, destroy the economies of multiple states or even countries HOW are we to litigate such a thing?

the people of the region should have had control of the drilling rights, not an abritray federal agency. government has protected oil companies, and both of them are culprits, IMO. most monopolies would not exist in a free market economy, nor would environmental injustices be licensed by a federal authority

Quote:
This oil spill is a vastly more effective act of terrorism than 9/11 could ever hope to be. Isn't it ironic that the perpetrators of this colossal act of terrorism had not intended to cripple the economy of the Gulf

don't doubt that Obama will not use this as his '9/11'. this spill, as far as im concerned, is the most devastating thing that will ever happen to the coasts of the US. there is no plugging this thing.. and it's worse then anyone in the Media has allowed us to believe. this will not be fixed.. and the NWO socialists do plan on using this to further their one world currency-global socialist utopia, and it is not destined to go well for us liberty lovers out there

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 7:17 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 7:17 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 7:20 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 7:21 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Verrry weird...none of the text is coming up in my posts. I'm gonna stick it ALL in my signature, since that at least is coming up. What's going on? Anyway:

Quote:
I bet BP and TransOcean would have spent the money, in hindsight, to prevent this horrible mess from happening to begin with

They lulled themselves into believing it WOULDN'T happen. They were so focused on profit they didn't look beyond it. I imagine they WOULD spend the money in hindsight, but that's part of the problem with unhampered free enterprise; it pushes and pushes, buys its own line that nothing can go wrong, until it all comes crashing down.

Quote:
the fishing rights of many people were violated, so the contract with BP for drilling should have been with them

That's just a joke. Given fishermen had no standing out in the ocean, there never would have been any contracts; BP would have done as it wanted with no oversight at all. Government failed; I maintain that is because a) Big Oil was given carte blanche by deregulation, and b) MMS was corrupted, at least in part by cronies being put in power who had no expertise in the field (which happened in virtually all aspects of government by Dumbya) and who, knowing the carte blanche mentality, were quite happy to get in bed with oil lobbyists and live high on the hog.

I’ll ask you an even more pertinent question: Are you ABLE to protect your property? THAT’S the pertinent question. Of course anyone would protect their own, IF THEY COULD. Fishermen didn’t “own” the ocean; they had no power to protect it and never would have, in the real world. Take away government completely, and there would be no liability in the first place. It’s similar to would we protect our drinking water, our air, etc., if we could? Of course, but if a manufacturing plant is upwind, upstream of us, we have no power to affect what they do. Only a centralized authority can oversee private enterprise where individuals cannot. Government FAILED; that doesn’t mean there should be none.

Quote:
you know you cant steal, murder or commit fraud- that's a principle we all must be forced to acknowledge.

Total fallacy. Who’s going to stop anyone from committing fraud? If you say “the community”, that’s absurd; first, it can’t KNOW about fraud most of the time; second, you’d never get enough of the community in agreement to enforce it. There would be those in the community who benefited from the fraud, who would go against any effort at change.

Did the serfs have the power to change their situation from what their overlords decided it would be? Only by ganging up and rioting. So you want a riot here, a riot there...that’s great government. If they tried to organize to bring about change, there were always more serfs, more people hungry for work, to replace them. If you truly believe people will behave as they “should”, you don’t live in the real world.

Quote:
most monopolies would not exist in a free market economy, nor would environmental injustices be licensed by a federal authority.

Of COURSE monopolies would exist, power begets power, it has always been so. And who exactly would ensure environmental injustices were licensed or not?

I see your view as an idealistic, unrealistic one. Societies with no government have always failed; societies with a single individual in power have as well. Ours isn’t good, it fails a lot, but it at least leaves open the possibility of individuals choosing who governs them.

This administration will no doubt use the crisis; every administration does, every INDIVIDUAL does, if they can. Hopefully it will use it to strengthen the regulations which have been gutted and push us toward less dependence on oil. We can't know. I don't share ou're fears of a "one world currency-global socialist utopia".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 7:48 AM

Quote:

i just disagree. do you think this mess with the Deep Water Horizon is good for BP? i bet BP and TransOcean would have spent the money, in hindsight, to prevent this horrible mess from happening to begin with.

That, Ant, is just an idiotic statement. It's like you're arguing that, had they KNOWN this was going to happen, they would have tried to prevent it. They KNEW it was a risk, they KNEW they were cutting corners, and they HOPED that this wouldn't happen. To say they "would have" spent the money to prevent it is just pure idiocy; if they "would have", then they actually fucking WOULD HAVE! They didn't, which tells you all you need to know about how concerned they are with safety, the environment, and preventing "this horrible mess": None. They are "none concerned", to paraphrase Spinal Tap. Their concern doesn't go to eleven. Not even when those eleven are their dead workers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
They lulled themselves into believing it WOULDN'T happen. They were so focused on profit they didn't look beyond it. I imagine they WOULD spend the money in hindsight, but that's part of the problem with unhampered free enterprise; it pushes and pushes, buys its own line that nothing can go wrong, until it all comes crashing down.

oh please.. that's complete demagoguery. of course BP was focused on profit, name a business or industry that isn't? it turns out that being more cautious would have prevented the billions of dollars in liabilities BP will be forced to pay out now. it does make economic sense to limit the risk of such potential disasters

Quote:
That's just a joke. Given fishermen had no standing out in the ocean, there never would have been any contracts; BP would have done as it wanted with no oversight at all.

no, BP should have had to acquire the drilling rights from property owners and fisherman of the gulf coast. its entirely possible BP wouldnt have been given the go ahead in that instance. instead, your precious Federal government GAVE BP THE RIGHTS to drill way the hell out there, and was supposed to be in charge of regulating the rig, and they FAILED! not only that, they set a cap of 75 mil that reduced the incentive for BP to drill safely. and the reason BP was drilling that far out, is because government regulates where oil companies drill, encouraging BP to drill so far out.

Quote:
Government failed; I maintain that is because a) Big Oil was given carte blanche by deregulation,

the oil industry is one of thee most heavily regulated industries in existence. 'Big oil' wasnt given carte blance, BIG GOVERNMENT set the stage for this mess to happen. BP knew what a risk it was, and they are fully responsible for what happened.. but so is government, who acted as the enabler

Quote:
and b) MMS was corrupted, at least in part by cronies being put in power who had no expertise in the field (which happened in virtually all aspects of government by Dumbya) and who, knowing the carte blanche mentality, were quite happy to get in bed with oil lobbyists and live high on the hog.

and yet you conveniently leave out the most important point to be had there. government and corporation colluded. how? because government was given authority to over-regulate the industry. MMS was corrupted, because governments role in the industry is corrupt

Quote:
I’ll ask you an even more pertinent question: Are you ABLE to protect your property? THAT’S the pertinent question. Of course anyone would protect their own, IF THEY COULD. Fishermen didn’t “own” the ocean; they had no power to protect it and never would have, in the real world.

you need a permit to drill. its just a matter of who authorizes the permit. should it be the property owners, and the people of the gulf, or should it be an abitrary federal agency with no accountability?

Quote:
Take away government completely, and there would be no liability in the first place. It’s similar to would we protect our drinking water, our air, etc., if we could?

government is already obligated to protect our collective rights in such an instance

Quote:
Of course, but if a manufacturing plant is upwind, upstream of us, we have no power to affect what they do. Only a centralized authority can oversee private enterprise where individuals cannot. Government FAILED; that doesn’t mean there should be none.

no, it simply means government is simply not capable of protecting us, which is why the principles of competition and incentive are our only resort

Quote:

Of COURSE monopolies would exist(in a free market), power begets power, it has always been so. And who exactly would ensure environmental injustices were licensed or not?

no, historically monoplies were enabled and created by government intervention and favoritism. and it just so happens that one of the few roles of government is to protect property rights. what happened during the industrial revolution was government gave corporations license to violate the property rights of individual citizens. think about it logically

Quote:
I see your view as an idealistic, unrealistic one. Societies with no government have always failed; societies with a single individual in power have as well. Ours isn’t good, it fails a lot, but it at least leaves open the possibility of individuals choosing who governs them.

i have never advocated 'no government', im not an anarchist. what i advocate is a limited government with specific enumerated powers, and thats it! not a government that pretends it can protect people from themselves, eliminate all risk from life, regulate peoples behavior and habits, all without infringing peoples liberties one iota. its impossible, as has been proven through the course of human history

Quote:
This administration will no doubt use the crisis; every administration does, every INDIVIDUAL does, if they can. Hopefully it will use it to strengthen the regulations which have been gutted and push us toward less dependence on oil.

government is incapable of doing what you just described.

take cell phones. 40 years ago, it was million dollar technology. today, for $100, you can get a cell phone with camera and internet. this was because the free market finally made this technology affordable to the masses through its own processes.. and now everyone has one. now take the automobile. 40 years ago a new cadillac was 3k. its now 50k. and you know when prices began escalating? the 70's, when government began regulating safety, emissions and fuel economy. this applies to everything, energy, healthcare.. anywhere the government interferes and meddles, the normal price function of capitalism becomes distorted, and the outcome is inevitably altered. its common sense, really..

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 8:43 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

" it does make economic sense to limit the risk of such potential disasters "

Hello,

This is very true. And yet a corporation entirely interested in its own economic benefit took steps to ensure this disaster by overlooking safety.

So... if we can't trust a corporation to look out for itself by looking out for us... and if we can't trust the government to make them look out for us...

who and what do we trust?

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 9:58 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"no, BP should have had to acquire the drilling rights from property owners and fisherman of the gulf coast."

Hello,

To my knowledge, there are no property owners or fishermen who own the ocean floor... and hence none of them have individual or collective authority to give consent to drilling. Or are you proposing some kind of system where everyone who lives in a coastal area is given power over the ocean out to a certain distance? I'm not sure what you're saying here.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 9:59 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"40 years ago a new cadillac was 3k."

Hello,

Which Cadillac was 3k in 1970?

Edited to add:

1970 Cadillacs
__________________
http://100megsfree4.com/cadillac/cad1970/cad70s.htm
http://100megsfree4.com/cadillac/cad1970/cad70d.htm
http://100megsfree4.com/cadillac/cad1970/cad70e.htm
http://100megsfree4.com/cadillac/cad1970/cad70f.htm

1960 Cadillacs
__________________
http://www.100megsfree4.com/cadillac/cad1960/cad60s.htm
http://www.100megsfree4.com/cadillac/cad1960/cad60f.htm
http://www.100megsfree4.com/cadillac/cad1960/cad60e.htm
http://www.100megsfree4.com/cadillac/cad1960/cad60d.htm

It appears as though you have to go back to 1950 to get a 3,000 dollar Caddie, and then you have to buy their cheapie model:

http://www.100megsfree4.com/cadillac/cad1950/cad50s.htm

Possibly the escalating price of Cadillacs has something to do with this:
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1970s.html

Money and Inflation 1970's
To provide an estimate of inflation we have given a guide to the value of $100 US Dollars for the first year in the decade to the equivalent in today's money
If you have $100 Converted from 1970 to 2005 it would be equivalent to $517.65 today

So a $6000 1970 Cadillac would be worth $30,000 by inflation alone. $6000 was a cheapie Cadillac with few options in 1970. What would today's cheapie low-option Cadillac be?

http://www.automotive.com/2010/101/cadillac/srx/hse-sport-utility/877/
pricing/index.html

2010 model Cadillac SUV for 33k?

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 10:59 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
oh please.. that's complete demagoguery. of course BP was focused on profit, name a business or industry that isn't? it turns out that being more cautious would have prevented the billions of dollars in liabilities BP will be forced to pay out now. it does make economic sense to limit the risk of such potential disasters

Just as it makes sense for banks not to aggressively push money into bad loans?

Yanno, Greenspan thought the same way you did. He let the financial sector spin out of control because he was lulled by the belief that they would look out for their ultimate best interests. But even he had to admit that he was wrong.

Quote:
The former Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, has conceded that the global financial crisis has exposed a "mistake" in the free market ideology which guided his 18-year stewardship of US monetary policy.

A long-time cheerleader for deregulation, Greenspan admitted to a congressional committee yesterday that he had been "partially wrong" in his hands-off approach towards the banking industry and that the credit crunch had left him in a state of shocked disbelief. "I have found a flaw," said Greenspan, referring to his economic philosophy. "I don't know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact."

It was the first time the man hailed for masterminding the world's longest postwar boom has accepted any culpability for the crisis that has engulfed the global banking system. During a feisty exchange on Capitol Hill, he told the House oversight committee that he regretted his opposition to regulatory curbs on certain types of financial derivatives which have left banks on Wall Street and in the Square Mile facing billions of dollars worth of liabilities.

"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," said Greenspan.

If Greenspan can learn, there's hope for you too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 24, 2010 1:13 AM

KANEMAN

The internet web filter wrote:
Hello,

I would not support retroactive legislation. However, BP is smart to surrender to the President's request.

Spoken like a true fascist...."Surrender to the president" What an idiot....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 24, 2010 5:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Not wanting my comment to Anti (hi Kaneman!

) to get lost in the shuffle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 24, 2010 6:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

i just disagree. do you think this mess with the Deep Water Horizon is good for BP? i bet BP and TransOcean would have spent the money, in hindsight, to prevent this horrible mess from happening to begin with.

That, Ant, is just an idiotic statement. It's like you're arguing that, had they KNOWN this was going to happen, they would have tried to prevent it. They KNEW it was a risk, they KNEW they were cutting corners, and they HOPED that this wouldn't happen. To say they "would have" spent the money to prevent it is just pure idiocy; if they "would have", then they actually fucking WOULD HAVE! They didn't, which tells you all you need to know about how concerned they are with safety, the environment, and preventing "this horrible mess": None. They are "none concerned", to paraphrase Spinal Tap. Their concern doesn't go to eleven. Not even when those eleven are their dead workers.

Yeah, Signy - Me too! I was hoping Ant had some answer for me as well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 24, 2010 6:24 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
no, historically monoplies were enabled and created by government intervention and favoritism. and it just so happens that one of the few roles of government is to protect property rights. what happened during the industrial revolution was government gave corporations license to violate the property rights of individual citizens. think about it logically.

Just commenting. In general, this is true with a number of industries historically. The East India Company is a major example from the 1700s and early 1800s, with favouritism from the British government.

However, some forms of monopoly CAN arise within a business, without government intervention, trhough horizontal integration or vertical integration management styles. Coincidentally, these styles arose in the 19th century with the main movers behind the industrial revolution, and I'd argue that these ideas form the basis for most modern corporate business models.

Clearly regulation was part of the problem here (with regulators being too friendly with the people they're supposed to be making sure meet safety and engineering standards), and is not always a good thing. But I think there's a strong case for deregulation not working UNLESS there is also deintegration.

Ultimately I think large corporations will deintegrate themselves, simply because the larger you get, the more you can make and sell, but at the same time the more unstable you become. It may take a while, but eventually the same people who play fast and loose with the economy, declare bankruptcy and start under another name will be hit, economically, by the ramifications of their own actions. They are gutting the economy, and money and value of what they produce is being pissed away through practices that artificially increase inflation.

In the case of the gulf, I think having "accidentally" caused a disaster that necessitates burning off all that oil, which is likely a limited natural resource, counts as this.

It's not JUST government regulation, bad business practices also combine with bad government to create a perfect storm. Neither side, business or government behaves with any kind of common sense or ethics, so any laws that get passed are equally nonsensical, but ultimately it's in their best interests to be responsible. And I do think eventually people will see that. When that happens, far less government and regulation will be needed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 24, 2010 6:47 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well, I see the responses I would have made have already been made; thank you all.

Basically, I see you as completely closed to the idea that government can do ANY good, and blind to the fact that business individuals/corporations will do anything and everything in their power, irregardless of how it affects their employees or safety concerns. This has been shown over and over again, but your refusal to even acknowledge it shows clearly that you have made up your mind, and will avoid any facts to the contrary. So be it.

The very bottom line is your concept that fishermen and landowners would ever have the "right" to contract with deep-water-drilling operations, or actually ANY drilling operations off their coastline. There are no property rights involved, no property rights would be conveyed by anyone; certainly not businesses, and certainly not the inhabitants.

Beyond that even, if it WERE possible, the fishermen and coastal residents would in all likelihood have contracted with the companies; then been virtually unable to collect any damages, as there is nobody to enforce those contracts. Expensive lawyers haven't been able to get fair recompense for their clients from Exxon even after twenty years; even the government has had a helluva time getting anything out of them.

But it all goes back to that basic premise, which is downright ridiculous. Nobody owns the ocean; nobody COULD own the ocean; centralized government is the only way to regulate what's don off our coasts. No fishermen/resident would have ANY ability to contract, period. How you can envision that as a reality speaks clearly to your deliberate blindness. As long as you insist on holding fast to that concept, there can be no debate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 24, 2010 6:53 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

Spoken like a true fascist...."Surrender to the president" What an idiot...

Do you have a problem with Obama getting $20 Billion from BP for the folks? I think it's one of his greatest accomplishments to date as President. I don't know what he said, or even potentially threatened, but they ponied it up damn fast, and that is a good thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 7:33 AM