OT: Gulf Spill... New estimate...
Michael
well in the Gulf of Mexico to 35,000-60,000 barrels per day."
Wow... What a surprise... I never could have guessed it was that
much.... At least they are getting close to the real amount... Locals
there say about 3,000,000 gallons a day. Thus far that makes it about
156,000,000 of oil that has been introduced into the ocen. By the time
it is stopped in August (if in fact the relife drilling works) we will
have had 300,000,000 + gallons of hydrocarbons total added into the
water.
Considering the first PB and government estimate of "no oil to 5,000
gallons per day" even AFTER they saw images of the broken well
head....
Those jeark-off's knew that they could not deal with a spill that deep
and the went and drilled any way...
Johnny Morongo
And, Michael, that's not counting the probable escape of untold
billions of air-borne oil related poisons that are even now likely to
be bubbling up into the atmosphere. Now all we need is a hurricane in
the Gulf to move it right along.
MASSIVE proportions, this.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh... We've got nothing to worry about... Obama is going to find out
which "asses to kick".
Ray OHara
"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:2f738444-fbc0-4f4b...@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
none of the oil companies can deal with such a mess but one wants
permission to drill at 8000 feet.
papa.carl44
"Ray OHara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hv94ag$j36$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Some of my conservative aquaintences (not friends) admonished me on
Saturday for even thinking we should make a massive effort to move away from
our oil addiction. Their main concern was what would happen to all the
people counting on their dividend checks from BP, and those poor folks on
pensions related to BP investments. Fortunately, I only have to deal with
and be civil to these buffoons once in a rare while for "family"
reasons...and even that gets harder and harder for me to do. I don't think
anybody in a position of authority is handling this mess with any
decisiveness. This whole thing is beyond pathetic.
Michael
wrote:
> "Ray OHara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hv94ag$j36$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
what would happen to the people expecting dividend check ??? if they
insist on ignoring ecology and thinking about lost moneys... how about
tens of thousands of families that are going to lose their entire
means of income in the gulf now ???
i dont think too many people realize what is happening. it is too
big...
Ray OHara
"papa.carl44" <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
news:EcOdnXh2i5TmvIXR...@giganews.com...
>> none of the oil companies can deal with such a mess but one wants
>> permission to drill at 8000 feet.
>
> Some of my conservative aquaintences (not friends) admonished me on
> Saturday for even thinking we should make a massive effort to move away
> from our oil addiction. Their main concern was what would happen to all
> the people counting on their dividend checks from BP, and those poor folks
> on pensions related to BP investments. Fortunately, I only have to deal
> with and be civil to these buffoons once in a rare while for "family"
> reasons...and even that gets harder and harder for me to do. I don't
> think anybody in a position of authority is handling this mess with any
> decisiveness. This whole thing is beyond pathetic.
>
when you invest in a company you take every risk that company takes.
but the "get the govt out of business" crowd wants the Govt to protect their
profits no matter what.
papa.carl44
This song and dance I heard on Saturday is not new to me...I'm afraid a lot
of folks sing the same tune. They do not believe in any global warming
issues, claim it is all a hoax of the liberal anti-American crowd, and as
far as the Gulf Coast is concerned they just don't get it....these people
even have a home near Sarasota where they spend at least half the
year...they are certain that the "people in charge there will keep the oil
away from us".....and I don't think this is an isolated type thinking...we
have a certain class of people who are very entitled. They really are not
concerned with what is happening to anyone besides themselves. Their
comments about New Orleans were all directed at how it's a low life place
anyway...so it is best to let it just change etc. These are successful
business people, own a company, and are very much part of the Christian
right. For me it's like oil and water...I simply can not stand them and it
takes all I can muster to just get passed what I have to do and not create a
family problem...others in the family seem to be able to look past this kind
of thinking, I don't have that gene...plus, they are Eagles fans too, so
they automatically suck.
MZ
Well put. The hypocrisy on that side is astounding.
papa.carl44
Well said, and what I've been thinking...my next door neighbor is always
screaming about some tea party agenda, does't want gov't. involved in
anything (except his medicare which he still doesn't think is gov't.) he
wants small gov't. but wants Obama to "clean up the mess...do something!"
It amazes me, only when it's what they want.
papa.carl44
"MZ" <ma...@nospam.void> wrote in message
news:2tmdnWwH7oTQpYXR...@giganews.com...
I've found you can't even have a conversation with them either, there is
absolutely no way of discussing it at all...no give and take, no
listening...it's all what they say and want....some of these factions on the
far right really advocate a one party system...theirs.
John C TX
> Ray OHara wrote:
> > "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
The true conservatives certainly don't think it is the govt's job to
protect profits. I would say both parties are guilty of the "too big
to fail" which is abused more & more as the grounds for bail outs. BP
doesn't need bailing out& no one thinks they should walk away the
concern is that the law, as it was with the GM bondholders, will be
tossed aside.
Things get scary for people when civil rights are ignored. Economies
can fall apart if the perception is that property rights are no longer
secure.
papa.carl44
"John C TX" <johnc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5aa7b259-6646-4fbd...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Especially for those who own most of the property. When the distribution of
the total wealth shifts to where fewer and fewer own more and more, the
cries about that seem to really escalate. I had very little choice when the
County and State took about 9 feet off my front yard to "redirect" the road
out front....I expect the rules to be about the same for all...and they
aren't. And....where are the true conservatives hiding? I haven't seen or
heard any in a long time.
John C TX
Johnny, possibly but keep in mind the earth takes a pounding from
volcanoes far worse that what this has thrown at us. It is not only
during eruptions but daily.
I am not minimizing what happened here as I am smart enough to know we
don't know the full extent of this. I do know that this is not the
worst spill that the Gulf has been hit with.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/gulf-oil-spill-ixtoc.html
I am trying to hope that this will work like it did 30 years ago but
like anyone with a brain I am concerned.
John C TX
wrote:
> "John C TX" <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:5aa7b259-6646-4fbd...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Eminent domain sucks when you are the victim so I am sorry to hear
that story but at least that has always been the law. What Obama did
to teh bondholders are GM & what he may be soon doing to BP is
unprecedented outside of war.
>And....where are the true conservatives hiding? I haven't seen or
> heard any in a long time.
You called them Nazi's & ran them off?
:)
There are less & less. There were never many in print. Brooks is one
of my favorites. We need more Buckleys.
Michael
> X-No-Archive: Yes
> called oil & gas or the workers that are part of the $2.5BN industry
> called fishing that will all get a pay raise this year by working on
> the oil clean up?- Hide quoted text -
I cant imagine you really think the fishing industry just got a
raise. If some people have an infusion of money working on the clean
up over the next few months, what about next year ??? What about over
the next twenty years ??? What about the ancillary businesses that are
related to the fishing industry ??? What about tourism ??? Hotel
workers and shop keepers will get money to clean up the spill too ???
Who's going to go rebuild the sea floor and restock it with
invertebrates to preserve the marine eco system ???
papa.carl44
X-No-Archive: Yes
On Jun 15, 7:57 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
wrote:
> "Ray OHara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hv94ag$j36$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
Papa, I wasn't at your soiree, again no invite, but lets be clear we
can't end this addiction tomorrow and if you shut done drilling
completely you might as well shut down the state of LA tomorrow.
If Obama is serious about as pollution this then tax gasoline and
don't increase income taxes. Tax excessive use of electricity in
homes which in the short term eases the strain on the grid.
That is a flat out lame argument...the "end it tomorrow" crap...of course we
can't....any school kid can figure that out, probably any 9 year old. But,
we can acknowledge a change needs to occur and begin aggressive plans to
make it happen. When people shout, "We can't end this tomorrow and they
really mean...let's not change anything, it's really all OK" we have a
serious problem. BTW...you said you are doing something to lose weight,
congrats...most people just say, "I can't lose this all today" and go have a
piece of pie. I agree on taxing gasoline IF we develop some infrastructure
that lets folks get to work. We now have a system where some people will
have to spend most of their money getting to work and paying the rent...food
will be a luxury item. I have sent my Congressman and Senators harsh
statements about how I believe this administration runs things. I also sent
the Change.org folks some stuff....made me feel good, don't think they will
remotely give a damn. And....you would NOT want an invite to this
shindig....I HAD to go, or resign from the family.
MZ
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> called oil & gas or the workers that are part of the $2.5BN industry
> called fishing that will all get a pay raise this year by working on
> the oil clean up?
Lots of people were out jobs when the mafia collapsed too. Oh well.
The fact is that BP was doing a lot of risky things that, at least in
hindsight, they shouldn't have been doing. If they're no longer allowed
to do those things, then they say oil prices will go up (I'm not
convinced of this, but whatever...). There. You don't have to tax
gasoline now. :)
John C TX
wrote:
> "John C TX" <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:d52cbdcc-2060-442f...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
I don't think I was arguing I was clarifying that it can't be done by
flipping a switch.
>But,
> we can acknowledge a change needs to occur and begin aggressive plans to
> make it happen. When people shout, "We can't end this tomorrow and they
> really mean...let's not change anything, it's really all OK" we have a
> serious problem.
No, when I say it, it means it can't be done tomorrow not that it
can't be done.
>BTW...you said you are doing something to lose weight,
> congrats...most people just say, "I can't lose this all today" and go have a
> piece of pie. I agree on taxing gasoline IF we develop some infrastructure
> that lets folks get to work. We now have a system where some people will
> have to spend most of their money getting to work and paying the rent...food
> will be a luxury item.
That is a fair point about the working poor & travel. Maybe lower the
lowest tax rate first.
BTW food costs are partially a problem due to that gray not green
solution called ethanol. Getting ADM & the farm states into energy
was the worst move of all time.
I truly believe until people feel the pain of the market via gas
prices, electricity, etc. they won't change.
>I have sent my Congressman and Senators harsh
> statements about how I believe this administration runs things. I also sent
> the Change.org folks some stuff....made me feel good, don't think they will
> remotely give a damn. And....you would NOT want an invite to this
> shindig....I HAD to go, or resign from the family.
:)
btw ask your son about that work out as he may know it. It was
designed by BJ Penn to replicate a UFC fight. Closest I have come to
puking in a workout in 17 years.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
if there is any sort of a silver lining to this, may be "authorities"
will have a close look at the BP Atlantis rig. It is being called an
accident waiting to happen. I doubt it though... The oil guys have it
nice and cozy with the government... Presidents dont ask which "asses
they have to kick" they ask "which asses they have to lick.
John C TX
MZ, equating BP with the mob is a bit over the top.
If they get tossed out of US offshore drilling for proven malfeasance
that is their penalty and is a hefty price to pay. There is still a
chance that this was someone else's fault & or bad luck. I certainly
agree that anyone drilling needs to satisfy the govt that the safety
measures work.
papa.carl44
"MZ" <ma...@nospam.void> wrote in message
See Mark...YOU are a true conservative who lets the market and cost measures
run things...that really upsets the "modern convervatives" who really
practice reverse socialism...or free enterprise for the poor and socialism
for the rich and corporations.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
The "fault" in this case appears to be very much like the nature of
the "fault" in the space Shuttle Challenger disaster. With the
Challenger, engineers told the people in management that they stood in
jeopardy of loosing the crew if they launched in cold weather.
Management was under pressure and disregarded what the engineers
said. The result is history. Same deal with PB deep off shore
drilling. Engineers reported that they did not have any practical
solutions to a potential blow-out at that depth. Hence, no crisis
plan was in place other than window dressing. Management knew it and
proceeded with the drilling any way. This is not being aired out yet
in the media, but it will be before all is said and done. Engineers
are on record stating the danger of deep off shore drilling.
papa.carl44
Really? Bad luck or someone else's fault...isn't the "buck stops here" at
play? Isn't everything Obama's fault now? Maybe Obama or Bush before him
took a dive and screwed around with the valves down there :;) It's BP's
well, they take the profits...they pay the price for the bad stuff that
happens. I like Lewis Black's take on it...we are under attack, just like
9/11 or Peal Harbor. We should set our sights on BP, go after them, take
over their buildings world wide and occupy them. Their "citizens" would
have to go to work for us in some kind of reparations program and we could
have Judgement in Gulf Shores for the trial site. Hell, they are bigger
than lots of countries.
MZ
It was a demonstration that the ends don't justify the means. You don't
determine whether or not someone can do something harmful based on its
economic impact.
> If they get tossed out of US offshore drilling for proven malfeasance
> that is their penalty and is a hefty price to pay. There is still a
> chance that this was someone else's fault & or bad luck. I certainly
> agree that anyone drilling needs to satisfy the govt that the safety
> measures work.
John, it's BP's fault, no matter what happened. They were unprepared to
deal with a catastrophe, and therefore it was gross incompetence on
their part or, more likely, they took on too much risk.
papa.carl44
:)
When I was in college my roomate was VP of the Young Republicans and I was
Seargent of Arms for the Young Democrats. We used to go to The
Intercollegiate Conference on Government together, even roomed together at
those things. We discussed things and argued our points, and sometimes we
agreed. The old school conservatives were Americans first, the new school
conservatives are not, they are Business first and always and they throw in
some phony patriotism and religion to look good. I was never questioned in
regards to my "Americanism" or my "Patriotism" because I was a Democrat back
then...and we were just as disorganized as Democrats today. That is just
the nature of a more liberal view of things, diverse ideas. But, I think
those diverse ideas used to exist in Republicans too. This new stuff is way
off base in that regard. I never called any REAL conservative a
Nazi..never, but I do think some of the neocons are coming close to the
fundamental principals that drove certain aspects of that
movement....primarily being the desire to eliminate any opposition or
opposing points of view. I do not think the new right is a conservative
movement at all.
papa.carl44
DAMN....you sound like a Democrat. I agree, but mass transit should be a
priority!
BTW food costs are partially a problem due to that gray not green
solution called ethanol. Getting ADM & the farm states into energy
was the worst move of all time.
The biggest screw up of all was the creation of all the post WWII
suburbs...without any planning. I know it's all hindsight, but what we
should have done was create adjacent residential areas with transit to city
areas, all this living in the country crap has created a huge
mess..."turning corn fields in to condos"
I truly believe until people feel the pain of the market via gas
prices, electricity, etc. they won't change.
You are right...but the way we do things it will have to be the poor and
middle class that suffers...I'm dead certain the wealthy and privelaged will
get a pass on this stuff...their investments will rise as all the oil prices
go up.
papa.carl44
:)
I will...he is really into UFC stuff...and he is one of those guys who works
out every single day. They have a gym at his facility (PE tests required)
and he goes in at 5AM every day to do that first. Over the last year he has
added yoga to his regimen too. He can still bench well over 300 (450
something was his max once) and he runs five miles three times a week. How
in the Hell he got these genes I have no idea. For me, anything over a 100
yard dash was long distance, I never minded lifting weights but I only ran
if threatened by something very intimidating or after something very
inviting. My son has to qualify twice a year in PE and hand to hand combat
along with firearms...I told him to just give me the firearms training, I
can handle that. He told me he didn't trust me with a weapon :-)
Michael
wrote:
> I do not think the new right is a conservative
> movement at all.
The "new right" is not an autonomous political movement. It is a
client of big money and a media smoke screen. The current "left" is
on the same set of strings. The standard political and social issues
as usually contested by the right vs.. left is just a side show. We
are not dealing with political idealists now. These are cold digit
opperatives.
Michael
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:44:21 -0400 "papa.carl44"
>
> <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
> >I truly believe until people feel the pain of the market via gas
> >prices, electricity, etc. they won't change.
>
> should be variable at the pump for non-commercial vehicles and depend
> upon the mpg rating. Let the bozos who think that the perceived size of
> their dick is determined by the size of their Hummer or Escalade pay
> $6.00 a gallon to fill up, while those who choose to drive cars that get
> better gas mileage pay something less, depending on the mpg.
>
> For example:
>
> 40+ mpg $2.50/gal
> 35-39.9 mpg $3.00/gal
> 30-34.9 mpg $3.50/gal
> 25-29.9 mpg $4.00/gal
> 20-24.9 mpg $5.00/gal
> Under 20 mpg $6.00/gal
>
> --
> graybeard
im all for trying somthing to encourage people to use less gas if
possible. still... this idea you have leaves me with a question.
what if the big gas using SUV carts around four people @ 20 mpg and
the econmy car carts around one person @ 35 mpg. mass transit
considerations here, no ???
gas is a dead end any way you slice it anyway
papa.carl44
"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:e33df526-e22f-43e7...@c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
I think this, in essence, was what was being said by the "other" oil execs
yesterday in the hearings. They kept going back to the fact that they don't
have any knowledge of how to deal with this at that depth.
papa.carl44
"graybeard" <gray...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:4buh16pkjbqf9b226...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:31:38 -0400 "papa.carl44"
> <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
>
>>I like Lewis Black's take on it...we are under attack, just like
>>9/11 or Peal Harbor. We should set our sights on BP, go after them, take
>>over their buildings world wide and occupy them. Their "citizens" would
>>have to go to work for us in some kind of reparations program and we could
>>have Judgement in Gulf Shores for the trial site. Hell, they are bigger
>>than lots of countries.
>
> we would by now be leveling their country with cruise missiles.
> --
> graybeard
Yup....you are right and as Black told his jokes, I kept thinking of how
much sense it started to make.
papa.carl44
Sort of the same thing I said...but don't tell this to the tea party crowd,
or my next door neighbor. He is certain he is involved in a earth shaking
new movement to "take our country back"...and he is going to get it all back
for the "little guys like us"....he has NO clue he is doing the grunt work
for big money interests and you absolutely can not talk to him.
papa.carl44
"graybeard" <gray...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:44:21 -0400 "papa.carl44"
> <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
>
>>I truly believe until people feel the pain of the market via gas
>>prices, electricity, etc. they won't change.
>
> should be variable at the pump for non-commercial vehicles and depend
> upon the mpg rating. Let the bozos who think that the perceived size of
> their dick is determined by the size of their Hummer or Escalade pay
> $6.00 a gallon to fill up, while those who choose to drive cars that get
> better gas mileage pay something less, depending on the mpg.
>
> For example:
>
> 40+ mpg $2.50/gal
> 35-39.9 mpg $3.00/gal
> 30-34.9 mpg $3.50/gal
> 25-29.9 mpg $4.00/gal
> 20-24.9 mpg $5.00/gal
> Under 20 mpg $6.00/gal
>
> --
> graybeard
I actually like this idea...good work.
papa.carl44
And you are right too.....so, just make sure you have to have six people in
the Hummer....aren't they always going to soccer practice anyway?
Deadmeat
> CNN: -- "Government officials raise estimate of oil spewing from a
> well in the Gulf of Mexico to 35,000-60,000 barrels per day."
>
> Wow... What a surprise... I never could have guessed it was that
> much.... At least they are getting close to the real amount... Locals
> there say about 3,000,000 gallons a day. Thus far that makes it about
> 156,000,000 of oil that has been introduced into the ocen. By the time
> it is stopped in August (if in fact the relife drilling works) we will
> have had 300,000,000 + gallons of hydrocarbons total added into the
> water.
>
> Considering the first PB and government estimate of "no oil to 5,000
> gallons per day" even AFTER they saw images of the broken well
> head....
>
> Those jeark-off's knew that they could not deal with a spill that deep
> and the went and drilled any way...
Don't worry, Costner to the rescue:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/kevin-costner-bp-machine-developed-answer-oil-spill/story?id=10905441
Oilworld? Dances with oil? Field of oil? Just think of the possibilities.
MZ
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:44:21 -0400 "papa.carl44"
>
>> I truly believe until people feel the pain of the market via gas
>> prices, electricity, etc. they won't change.
>
> should be variable at the pump for non-commercial vehicles and depend
> upon the mpg rating. Let the bozos who think that the perceived size of
> their dick is determined by the size of their Hummer or Escalade pay
> $6.00 a gallon to fill up, while those who choose to drive cars that get
> better gas mileage pay something less, depending on the mpg.
>
> For example:
>
> 40+ mpg $2.50/gal
> 35-39.9 mpg $3.00/gal
> 30-34.9 mpg $3.50/gal
> 25-29.9 mpg $4.00/gal
> 20-24.9 mpg $5.00/gal
> Under 20 mpg $6.00/gal
But what's the point? A guy driving an Escalade is already paying 4x as
much as a guy driving a Honda. The price factor is already there.
Also, your system doesn't take into account driving habits, which are
probably even more important than mpg. If the guy in the Escalade only
drives to the store and back, he's consuming less gas than the guy in
the Civic who drives all day long or decides to go on road trips every
weekend.
I don't think anybody should be punished for using gas. I just think
they need to pay the going rate. When people were screaming about high
gas prices last year, my response was usually.. "it costs what it
costs." Most people realized this too, as SUV sales plummeted over
those months. Prices are usually a fairly decent indicator about
supply, even in a cartelized industry. What I oppose more than anything
is artificially lowering the price through questionable means just so
that people squawk less.
MZ
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:31:38 -0400 "papa.carl44"
> <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
>
>> 9/11 or Peal Harbor. We should set our sights on BP, go after them, take
>> over their buildings world wide and occupy them. Their "citizens" would
>> have to go to work for us in some kind of reparations program and we could
>> have Judgement in Gulf Shores for the trial site. Hell, they are bigger
>> than lots of countries.
>
> we would by now be leveling their country with cruise missiles.
There are some theories floating around that a N. Korea sub caused this
because they hoped it would prompt the US to use a nuke to stop the
flow. This was in a UK newspaper. I don't find it very credible, but
lots of people are talking about it.
Michael
there is talk that top brass at PB... the ones that ignored the
dangers of deep oceanic drilling... are the ones that started the talk
about a phantom sub going around blowing up well heads
MZ
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:00:22 -0400 MZ <ma...@nospam.void> wrote:
>
>> graybeard wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:44:21 -0400 "papa.carl44"
>>> <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I truly believe until people feel the pain of the market via gas
>>>> prices, electricity, etc. they won't change.
>>> I proposed in this very group a couple of years ago that gas prices
>>> should be variable at the pump for non-commercial vehicles and depend
>>> upon the mpg rating. Let the bozos who think that the perceived size of
>>> their dick is determined by the size of their Hummer or Escalade pay
>>> $6.00 a gallon to fill up, while those who choose to drive cars that get
>>> better gas mileage pay something less, depending on the mpg.
>>>
>>> For example:
>>>
>>> 40+ mpg $2.50/gal
>>> 35-39.9 mpg $3.00/gal
>>> 30-34.9 mpg $3.50/gal
>>> 25-29.9 mpg $4.00/gal
>>> 20-24.9 mpg $5.00/gal
>>> Under 20 mpg $6.00/gal
>>
>> But what's the point? A guy driving an Escalade is already paying 4x as
>> much as a guy driving a Honda. The price factor is already there.
>
> Both one-time expenditures which the customer can afford, or he/she
> wouldn't be buying the vehicle, and often tax write-offs to boot. Not to
> mention the equity value. Operating expenses are more likely to make an
> impression on out-of-pocket cash flow.
Price factor = the fact that an Escalade driver's gas bill is a hell of
a lot higher than a Civic driver's.
>
>> Also, your system doesn't take into account driving habits, which are
>> probably even more important than mpg. If the guy in the Escalade only
>> drives to the store and back, he's consuming less gas than the guy in
>> the Civic who drives all day long or decides to go on road trips every
>> weekend.
>
> Isolated instances can always be used to support any argument. The
> little old lady from Pasadena is not going to be spending that much on
> gas anyway. The fact is that, in the aggregate, Escalades are going to
> consume a lot more gas, as well as create a lot more pollution, than an
> equal number of Civics.
Is this true? I mean, let's throw away the escalade thing for a minute.
Let's talk about gas guzzlers vs. efficient vehicles in general.
Sure, old ladies aren't buying Escalades, but they're also not buying
hybrids. I don't think it's "isolated" to suggest that driving habits
vary considerably and probably have a bigger impact than mpg.
>
>> I don't think anybody should be punished for using gas. I just think
>> they need to pay the going rate. When people were screaming about high
>> gas prices last year, my response was usually.. "it costs what it
>> costs." Most people realized this too, as SUV sales plummeted over
>> those months. Prices are usually a fairly decent indicator about
>> supply, even in a cartelized industry. What I oppose more than anything
>> is artificially lowering the price through questionable means just so
>> that people squawk less.
>
> I'm not proposing that prices be artificially lowered. I'm proposing
> that taxes be increased on those who are profligate in consuming limited
> resources.
Oh, I know. You want to increase prices, and I understand where you're
coming from. I'd be content if they just didn't DECREASE prices by,
say, going to war in the middle east or bailing out oil companies.
Johnny Morongo
> On Jun 15, 6:19 pm, Johnny Morongo
>
>
>
> <j.mireh...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 15, 3:19 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > CNN: -- "Government officials raise estimate of oil spewing from a
> > > well in the Gulf of Mexico to 35,000-60,000 barrels per day."
>
> > > Wow... What a surprise... I never could have guessed it was that
> > > much.... At least they are getting close to the real amount... Locals
> > > there say about 3,000,000 gallons a day. Thus far that makes it about
> > > 156,000,000 of oil that has been introduced into the ocen. By the time
> > > it is stopped in August (if in fact the relife drilling works) we will
> > > have had 300,000,000 + gallons of hydrocarbons total added into the
> > > water.
>
> > > Considering the first PB and government estimate of "no oil to 5,000
> > > gallons per day" even AFTER they saw images of the broken well
> > > head....
>
> > > Those jeark-off's knew that they could not deal with a spill that deep
> > > and the went and drilled any way...
>
> > billions of air-borne oil related poisons that are even now likely to
> > be bubbling up into the atmosphere. Now all we need is a hurricane in
> > the Gulf to move it right along.
>
> > MASSIVE proportions, this.
>
> Johnny, possibly but keep in mind the earth takes a pounding from
> volcanoes far worse that what this has thrown at us. It is not only
> during eruptions but daily.
>
> I am not minimizing what happened here as I am smart enough to know we
> don't know the full extent of this. I do know that this is not the
> worst spill that the Gulf has been hit with.
>
> http://news.discovery.com/earth/gulf-oil-spill-ixtoc.html
>
> I am trying to hope that this will work like it did 30 years ago but
> like anyone with a brain I am concerned.
There are a few items in he body of this report that are still
chilling:
1. "Compared to the 5,000-foot depth of the Deepwater Horizon spill,
the Ixtoc I came from much shallower waters, about 160 feet, still
within the reach of divers."
2. "Beaches, mostly in Mexico but to some extent also in the United
States, were hit, and birds succumbed in large numbers, despite the
dispersion efforts. Because of the dispersion, shrimp, squid, and some
fish populations suffered, with fisheries hit even harder."
3. "Despite the similarities of the Ixtoc I and Deepwater Horizon
spills, there is one major difference: wetlands. Linden said: "We
didn't have the extensive wetland contamination we are talking about
now."
And none of this speaks about the toxic gases that will inevitably get
into the air streams coming up from the Gulf. Hope you won't have to
deal with those down in Houston. But you'll make a better canary in a
coal mine than me. ;)
Johnny Morongo
> On Jun 16, 7:29 am, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "John C TX" <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:5aa7b259-6646-4fbd...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 15, 9:34 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>
> > > Ray OHara wrote:
> > > > "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
> > > >news:EcOdnXh2i5TmvIXR...@giganews.com...
> > > >>> permission to drill at 8000 feet.
> > > >> Some of my conservative aquaintences (not friends) admonished me on
> > > >> Saturday for even thinking we should make a massive effort to move away
> > > >> from our oil addiction. Their main concern was what would happen to all
> > > >> the people counting on their dividend checks from BP, and those poor
> > > >> folks
> > > >> on pensions related to BP investments. Fortunately, I only have to deal
> > > >> with and be civil to these buffoons once in a rare while for "family"
Actually, they're Fascists.
>
> :)
>
> There are less & less. There were never many in print. Brooks is one
> of my favorites. We need more Buckleys to laugh at.
fixed it
Johnny Morongo
> John C TX wrote:
> > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > On Jun 15, 8:08 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 8:57 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> "Ray OHara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:hv94ag$j36$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>>> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:2f738444-fbc0-4f4b...@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>> well in the Gulf of Mexico to 35,000-60,000 barrels per day."
> >>>>> Wow... What a surprise... I never could have guessed it was that
> >>>>> much.... At least they are getting close to the real amount... Locals
> >>>>> there say about 3,000,000 gallons a day. Thus far that makes it about
> >>>>> 156,000,000 of oil that has been introduced into the ocen. By the time
> >>>>> it is stopped in August (if in fact the relife drilling works) we will
> >>>>> have had 300,000,000 + gallons of hydrocarbons total added into the
> >>>>> water.
> >>>>> Considering the first PB and government estimate of "no oil to 5,000
> >>>>> gallons per day" even AFTER they saw images of the broken well
> >>>>> head....
> >>>>> Those jeark-off's knew that they could not deal with a spill that deep
> >>>>> and the went and drilled any way...
> >>>> permission to drill at 8000 feet.
> >>> Some of my conservative aquaintences (not friends) admonished me on
> >>> Saturday for even thinking we should make a massive effort to move away from
> >>> our oil addiction. Their main concern was what would happen to all the
> >>> people counting on their dividend checks from BP, and those poor folks on
> >>> pensions related to BP investments. Fortunately, I only have to deal with
> >>> and be civil to these buffoons once in a rare while for "family"
> >>> reasons...and even that gets harder and harder for me to do. I don't think
> >>> anybody in a position of authority is handling this mess with any
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> what would happen to the people expecting dividend check ??? if they
> >> insist on ignoring ecology and thinking about lost moneys... how about
> >> tens of thousands of families that are going to lose their entire
> >> means of income in the gulf now ???
>
> >> i dont think too many people realize what is happening. it is too
> >> big...
>
> > Which workers? The workers part of a $72 BN industry in Louisiana
> > called oil & gas or the workers that are part of the $2.5BN industry
> > called fishing that will all get a pay raise this year by working on
> > the oil clean up?
>
> Lots of people were out jobs when the mafia collapsed too.
We collapsed? Michael, do you hear him? Send a crew out. Remind
him.
Johnny Morongo
> There is still achance that this was someone else's fault...
Are you kidding? Maybe you think that Belichick was down there?
Johnny Morongo
wrote:
> "John C TX" <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:32d78e24-46db-496f...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 16, 7:29 am, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "John C TX" <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:5aa7b259-6646-4fbd...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 15, 9:34 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>
> > > Ray OHara wrote:
> > > > "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
> > > >news:EcOdnXh2i5TmvIXR...@giganews.com...
> > > >>> permission to drill at 8000 feet.
> > > >> Some of my conservative aquaintences (not friends) admonished me on
> > > >> Saturday for even thinking we should make a massive effort to move
> > > >> away
> > > >> from our oil addiction. Their main concern was what would happen to
> > > >> all
> > > >> the people counting on their dividend checks from BP, and those poor
> > > >> folks
> > > >> on pensions related to BP investments. Fortunately, I only have to
> > > >> deal
> > > >> with and be civil to these buffoons once in a rare while for "family"
> > > >> reasons...and even that gets harder and harder for me to do. I don't
> > > >> think anybody in a position of authority is handling this mess with
> > > >> any
>
> There are less & less. There were never many in print. Brooks is one
>
> When I was in college my roomate was VP of the Young Republicans and I was
> Seargent of Arms for the Young Democrats. We used to go to The
> Intercollegiate Conference on Government together, even roomed together at
> those things. We discussed things and argued our points, and sometimes we
> agreed. The old school conservatives were Americans first, the new school
> conservatives are not, they are Business first and always and they throw in
> some phony patriotism and religion to look good. I was never questioned in
> regards to my "Americanism" or my "Patriotism" because I was a Democrat back
> then...and we were just as disorganized as Democrats today. That is just
> the nature of a more liberal view of things, diverse ideas. But, I think
> those diverse ideas used to exist in Republicans too. This new stuff is way
> off base in that regard. I never called any REAL conservative a
> Nazi..never, but I do think some of the neocons are coming close to the
> fundamental principals that drove certain aspects of that
> movement....primarily being the desire to eliminate any opposition or
> opposing points of view. I do not think the new right is a conservative
> movement at all.
Papa, "new school conservatives" are fascists.
Michael
Michael
I tried to join a crew once, but i was dissmissed my first day on the
job. The boss sent me to "straighten someone out" and he heard that I
used a wiffle ball bat.
Johnny Morongo
> well in the Gulf of Mexico to 35,000-60,000 barrels per day."
>
> Wow... What a surprise... I never could have guessed it was that
> much.... At least they are getting close to the real amount... Locals
> there say about 3,000,000 gallons a day. Thus far that makes it about
> 156,000,000 of oil that has been introduced into the ocen. By the time
> it is stopped in August (if in fact the relife drilling works) we will
> have had 300,000,000 + gallons of hydrocarbons total added into the
> water.
>
> Considering the first PB and government estimate of "no oil to 5,000
> gallons per day" even AFTER they saw images of the broken well
> head....
>
> Those jeark-off's knew that they could not deal with a spill that deep
> and the went and drilled any way...
And the latest: Scientists now say ruptured Gulf well is leaking
between 1.47M and 2.52M gallons of oil a day
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0616/scientists-bp-leak-equivalent-exxon-valdez-days/
John C TX
> John C TX wrote:
> >> John C TX wrote:
> >>> X-No-Archive: Yes
> >>> On Jun 15, 8:08 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 15, 8:57 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> "Ray OHara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:hv94ag$j36$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>>>>> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:2f738444-fbc0-4f4b...@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>> well in the Gulf of Mexico to 35,000-60,000 barrels per day."
> >>>>>>> Wow... What a surprise... I never could have guessed it was that
> >>>>>>> much.... At least they are getting close to the real amount... Locals
> >>>>>>> there say about 3,000,000 gallons a day. Thus far that makes it about
> >>>>>>> 156,000,000 of oil that has been introduced into the ocen. By the time
> >>>>>>> it is stopped in August (if in fact the relife drilling works) we will
> >>>>>>> have had 300,000,000 + gallons of hydrocarbons total added into the
> >>>>>>> water.
> >>>>>>> Considering the first PB and government estimate of "no oil to 5,000
> >>>>>>> gallons per day" even AFTER they saw images of the broken well
> >>>>>>> head....
> >>>>>>> Those jeark-off's knew that they could not deal with a spill that deep
> >>>>>>> and the went and drilled any way...
> >>>>>> permission to drill at 8000 feet.
> >>>>> Some of my conservative aquaintences (not friends) admonished me on
> >>>>> Saturday for even thinking we should make a massive effort to move away from
> >>>>> our oil addiction. Their main concern was what would happen to all the
> >>>>> people counting on their dividend checks from BP, and those poor folks on
> >>>>> pensions related to BP investments. Fortunately, I only have to deal with
> >>>>> and be civil to these buffoons once in a rare while for "family"
> >>>>> reasons...and even that gets harder and harder for me to do. I don't think
> >>>>> anybody in a position of authority is handling this mess with any
> >>>>> decisiveness. This whole thing is beyond pathetic.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>> what would happen to the people expecting dividend check ??? if they
> >>>> insist on ignoring ecology and thinking about lost moneys... how about
> >>>> tens of thousands of families that are going to lose their entire
> >>>> means of income in the gulf now ???
> >>>> i dont think too many people realize what is happening. it is too
> >>>> big...
> >>> Which workers? The workers part of a $72 BN industry in Louisiana
> >>> called oil & gas or the workers that are part of the $2.5BN industry
> >>> called fishing that will all get a pay raise this year by working on
> >>> the oil clean up?
>
> >> The fact is that BP was doing a lot of risky things that, at least in
> >> hindsight, they shouldn't have been doing. If they're no longer allowed
> >> to do those things, then they say oil prices will go up (I'm not
> >> convinced of this, but whatever...). There. You don't have to tax
> >> gasoline now. :)
>
> > MZ, equating BP with the mob is a bit over the top.
>
> determine whether or not someone can do something harmful based on its
> economic impact.
MZ, it was weak.
>
> > If they get tossed out of US offshore drilling for proven malfeasance
> > that is their penalty and is a hefty price to pay. There is still a
> > chance that this was someone else's fault & or bad luck. I certainly
> > agree that anyone drilling needs to satisfy the govt that the safety
> > measures work.
>
> John, it's BP's fault, no matter what happened. They were unprepared to
> deal with a catastrophe, and therefore it was gross incompetence on
> their part or, more likely, they took on too much risk.
If you are talking about the initial problem & the failure to stop the
leak i am not sure as I don't know enough about petroleum engineering.
If you want to say that BP wasn't prepared for worst case that is
fair.
John C TX
> out every single day. They have a gym at his facility (PE tests required)
> and he goes in at 5AM every day to do that first. Over the last year he has
> added yoga to his regimen too. He can still bench well over 300 (450
> something was his max once) and he runs five miles three times a week. How
> in the Hell he got these genes I have no idea. For me, anything over a 100
> yard dash was long distance, I never minded lifting weights but I only ran
> if threatened by something very intimidating or after something very
> inviting. My son has to qualify twice a year in PE and hand to hand combat
> along with firearms...I told him to just give me the firearms training, I
> can handle that. He told me he didn't trust me with a weapon :-)
There are ten cops at this gym & one ranked MMA.
When you show him the video I guarantee he will have heard of it. This
has little running worst days 1.5 Miles.
This guys web site makes a lot of sense and some of it is easy to
incorporate.
John C TX
I was wondering if a solution to the fire they encountered exists
today. Technology has advanced but how much?
John C TX
I was referring to the blow out & the safety mechanism that was to cut
off the flow not the aftermath.
MZ
How are the two separable? If you put forth a proposal to do something,
it necessarily requires a part addressing "what if something goes
wrong?" Managing a catastrophe and safeguards to prevent a catastrophe
are intertwined.
galen...@yahoo.com
> I truly believe until people feel the pain of the market via gas
> prices, electricity, etc. they won't change.
Yup. That's the crux. If you want the market to take care of the
environment then the cost of the environmental care has to be factored
into the cost of products. We have a good amount of that now, for
example, emission standards on cars. We need much more and for a much
much wider spectrum of products.
The issue is that these will be labeled "taxes" in the communist sense
and fought long and hard against. One goes this route and they start
getting labeled UnAmerican blah blah blah. But, the market will not
just take care of this. On the contrary, the market could give a shit
about the environment.
--
Galen Boyer
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
MZ
> John C TX <johnc...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I truly believe until people feel the pain of the market via gas
>> prices, electricity, etc. they won't change.
>
> Yup. That's the crux. If you want the market to take care of the
> environment then the cost of the environmental care has to be factored
> into the cost of products. We have a good amount of that now, for
> example, emission standards on cars. We need much more and for a much
> much wider spectrum of products.
>
> The issue is that these will be labeled "taxes" in the communist sense
> and fought long and hard against. One goes this route and they start
> getting labeled UnAmerican blah blah blah. But, the market will not
> just take care of this. On the contrary, the market could give a shit
> about the environment.
>
Again, like clockwork, Galen chimes in with a complete misunderstanding
about how markets work.
There's no component of the market that condones pollution. Just like
there's no component of the market that allows murdering your
competitors (sorry John, but it's an apt analogy). So, blaming the
market for the wrongs that people do doesn't really make much sense.
You can have markets and a criminal justice system. They're not
mutually exclusive entities.
A recent article about how the free market could take care of the
environment:
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/fixing-global-warming-for-fun-if-not-for-profit/
galen...@yahoo.com
> galen...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> John C TX <johnc...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I truly believe until people feel the pain of the market via gas
>>> prices, electricity, etc. they won't change.
>>
>> Yup. That's the crux. If you want the market to take care of the
>> environment then the cost of the environmental care has to be factored
>> into the cost of products. We have a good amount of that now, for
>> example, emission standards on cars. We need much more and for a much
>> much wider spectrum of products.
>>
>> The issue is that these will be labeled "taxes" in the communist sense
>> and fought long and hard against. One goes this route and they start
>> getting labeled UnAmerican blah blah blah. But, the market will not
>> just take care of this. On the contrary, the market could give a shit
>> about the environment.
>>
>
> Again, like clockwork, Galen chimes in with a complete
> misunderstanding about how markets work.
Once again, MK keeps harping on a theoretical free market that doesn't
exist. We all know how markets work MK. We all live in them. We all
make decisions about them and from them, everyday. Markets are pretty
simple at their core. You just want to display some profound knowledge
of the difference between a true "free market" and a free market as it
is known today, but, oh well. I don't care. It doesn't help anyone
make the hard decisions that need to be made.
I think your whole point has been, "Galen, you called it a free market
and you clearly don't understand what a free market is, so, blah..."
MK, today's terminology is to call the market a "free market". Many
would believe that means we have a free market in the book sense, which
is not true. But, that still doesn't mean that calling today's market a
free market is a misnomer. It is the terminology of the day.
> There's no component of the market that condones pollution.
I never said markets condoned pollution. I said it doesn't give a hoot
about it. Participants in the market condone it, for sure. You must
force the market to care about it by making the market recognize cost.
> Just like there's no component of the market that allows murdering
> your competitors (sorry John, but it's an apt analogy). So, blaming
> the market for the wrongs that people do doesn't really make much
> sense.
I never blamed the market. I blame the idea that think the market will
actually do the right thing for the environment. The market does not
care. The market is the tool. It is not the cause. The blind faith in
the market is the damn issue!
> You can have markets and a criminal justice system. They're not
> mutually exclusive entities.
And, you can also have good people doing good things. That does not
mean the market, left alone, will somehow take care of the issues.
I really don't know what your point is here. Are you trying to say that
law is one thing and markets are another and the two aren't intertwined
or something? Or, are you trying to say laws enacted against those bad
apples in a market should not be called "the market"? I really don't get
what your harping on some damn definition of something is helping a
thing. I took all the classes, graduated top of my class with a masters
in finance, invest, work hard. I'm like alot of folks. I haven't read
alot on free market theory in awhile, and I don't care to. If I call
something free and you want to harp on that, well go ahead.
> A recent article about how the free market could take care of the
> environment:
> http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/fixing-global-warming-for-fun-if-not-for-profit/
Well, if we had truly free markets, sure, maybe, might, I don't know.
But, we don't have a truly "free" market, never will, so why do you keep
harping on the terminology? A free market is a theoritical concept that
helps one gain the basis of knowledge for when you take economics. In
my opinion, a "free" market will not work, either, even with the above
article making a reasonble point. At its core, the market is a pricing
mechanism, and today's market is doing just that as well, whether it
meets the definition of "free" or not. There is no incentive for a
pricing mechanism to try and add more cost to things. I guess people
might fix things if they were left to their own free market devices, I
doubt it, but, I could be wrong. Alot of people would try. Just like
alot of people give to charity and help the homeless. But, even with
the many good participants in our market today, we have "free" market
that produces corporations that give a shit about their toxins posioning
the environment and have to be taken to court and fight for years to not
have to pay anything to people's families who have lost their loved
ones. We have corporations that build products that kill and then hide
behind the fact that they are "incorporated" and fight in the courts.
The market is not the panacea that the market proponents would want you
to believe. It, is, completely obvious. It has very litte, if any
conscience and must have laws and regulations forced on it.
The true cost of things has to be forced on the market, period.
John C TX
Well the law differentiates in some states with comparative
negligence.
Ultimately BP is responsible as they were drilling & they are the
deepest pockets.
I am not arguing here I am explaining why I said it may not be their
"fault."
MZ
The dangerous part about mislabeling things is that you limit options.
For example, when people call fascism "socialism", as they had been
doing earlier in Obama's administration, it takes true socialist
positions off the table which are vastly different from the corporatist
ones that were being adopted.
For example... what to do about banks? Well, there was a debate
whether or not they should be bailed out, which was largely a fascist
initiative. The right wing called it "socialism"... meanwhile, the
socialists were ALSO condemning the bailouts and offering their own
solutions that no one was listening to because the right wing had
ignorantly assumed that they knew what the socialist stance on the issue
was.
You're using that same form of ignorance. You're labeling a corporatist
cartel as "free market" which, as it turns out, is the EXACT OPPOSITE
stance that true free market proponents hold on the issue. In one case
you've got individuals hiding behind the corporate veil... in the other
case, you have the only group that's actually suggesting removing the
corporate veil (the other groups have no interest in going to such lengths).
>> There's no component of the market that condones pollution.
>
> I never said markets condoned pollution. I said it doesn't give a hoot
> about it. Participants in the market condone it, for sure. You must
> force the market to care about it by making the market recognize cost.
Or not.
The two are mutually exclusive. To say that markets don't care about
pollution is like condemning speeding laws because they don't
appropriately address theft. They're two separate issues. You can have
one without the other, or vice versa. You can have a free market and an
environmental policy where 100% pollution cleanup is the norm. They're
independent factors.
Your schtick is to blame all of life's atrocities on markets because you
have an anti-market agenda. We can't talk about anything in here
without you pointing fingers at free market advocates.
Because you usually use it as an excuse to move in the OPPOSITE direction.
Do you not understand how ass backwards it is to say, "there's no free
market, and there never will be one, so let's take the OPPOSITE stance
instead." That's called resigning yourself to failure. It would be
like saying, "there's no human rights, and there never will be a truly
human right filled society, so let's go murder some gay people." It's a
completely illogical tact.
So it's important to understand what "free market" actually means so
that you don't confuse it with alternative philosophies. When you get
confused, you make bad choices.
> A free market is a theoritical concept that
> helps one gain the basis of knowledge for when you take economics. In
> my opinion, a "free" market will not work, either, even with the above
> article making a reasonble point. At its core, the market is a pricing
> mechanism, and today's market is doing just that as well, whether it
> meets the definition of "free" or not. There is no incentive for a
> pricing mechanism to try and add more cost to things. I guess people
> might fix things if they were left to their own free market devices, I
> doubt it, but, I could be wrong. Alot of people would try. Just like
> alot of people give to charity and help the homeless. But, even with
> the many good participants in our market today, we have "free" market
> that produces corporations that give a shit about their toxins posioning
> the environment and have to be taken to court and fight for years to not
> have to pay anything to people's families who have lost their loved
> ones. We have corporations that build products that kill and then hide
> behind the fact that they are "incorporated" and fight in the courts.
> The market is not the panacea that the market proponents would want you
> to believe. It, is, completely obvious. It has very litte, if any
> conscience and must have laws and regulations forced on it.
>
> The true cost of things has to be forced on the market, period.
I think it's dangerous to label anything "free market" when it's largely
the opposite of free market. Just like my socialism example above.
It's an intentional misrepresentation designed to promote one's agenda.
No one's saying you should throw the baby out with the bathwater. What
I am saying is that when something occurs that's anti-free market, it
makes no sense to blame free market policies. The BP spill is the
direct result of anti-free market policies. To blame free market
economists is like blaming the environmentalists who have been warning
everybody all along that offshore drilling isn't safe..."yeah but they
won't let us drill on land...it's their fault." It's silly reasoning.
In the same way, free market economists have been warning all along that
corporatism encourages excessive risk and an overreliance on government
regulation born from collusion. Now you've got people parroting those
very same ideas while at the same time blaming free market economics.
You can understand why some of us might suspect that those people don't
know what they're talking about.
Michael
> galen_bo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > MZ <m...@nospam.void> writes:
>
> >> galen_bo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
best post i have read from you ever...
MZ
Damning with faint praise, michael? :)
John C TX
The equivalent of calling, "You don't sweat much for a fat chick" a
compliment.
btw if this is accurate:
Someone should go to jail unless this is industry practice.
galen...@yahoo.com
You probably need to just to deal with the fact that today's term for
market is intermingled with free market. Today's world calls our market
a free market. You probably need to argue in terms more like, "In the
definitional difference of free markets, instead of today's markets,
which are not free, ..."
>>> There's no component of the market that condones pollution.
>>
>> I never said markets condoned pollution. I said it doesn't give a hoot
>> about it. Participants in the market condone it, for sure. You must
>> force the market to care about it by making the market recognize cost.
>
> Or not.
>
> The two are mutually exclusive. To say that markets don't care about
> pollution is like condemning speeding laws because they don't
> appropriately address theft. They're two separate issues. You can
> have one without the other, or vice versa. You can have a free market
> and an environmental policy where 100% pollution cleanup is the norm.
> They're independent factors.
In my opinion, this is where we disagree. In today's markets, they are
not, at all independent. The money in the market's flow to and from the
political leaders. So, to try and force 100% pollution cleanup, you
have to charge somebody, and the market won't like that so the market
will spend money to not have it happen.
> Your schtick is to blame all of life's atrocities on markets because
> you have an anti-market agenda.
I don't have an anti-market agenda. I have an anti-market-is-the-answer
agenda. Most arguments against environmental movements turn into
calling those in the movement, anti-market, or communist, or ...
> We can't talk about anything in here without you pointing fingers at
> free market advocates.
I think you are living in a dream world if you are advocating free
market economies.
I still don't understand.
What would be your solution? Let the free market sell anything and
everything and then have laws for how to use and dispose of the products
placed on the consumers? Because, I'm proposing more laws governing the
cleanliness of products sold, and you seem against that.
I'm not blaming free market economists. I'm blaming our market as it
exists today. I'm sorry. I just don't see how the term free market
holds any validity. Its theoretical at best and how could it bring
anything to the table that would actually be acceptable.
Its like advocating for a libertarian point of view. Its a great idea,
but it holds no weight at all in discussions, because it just won't
happen. We have what we have.
Basically, I'm saying, either we throw the baby out with the bath water
and actually have a free market, or you need to discuss what are actual
solutions that can help solve problems as they exist today.
> It's silly reasoning. In the same way, free market economists have
> been warning all along that corporatism encourages excessive risk and
> an overreliance on government regulation born from collusion. Now
> you've got people parroting those very same ideas while at the same
> time blaming free market economics. You can understand why some of us
> might suspect that those people don't know what they're talking about.
What would you advocate, in today's policies, not in a free market
advocates mind. I'm advocating a much more regulated and costly
solution. Make pollution and environmental harm much more costly at the
purchase time of the product. Then, let the market figure out the best
product. But, the cost of the product must include the cost to the
environment, at the outset of purchase of the product.
MZ
> In my opinion, this is where we disagree. In today's markets, they are
> not, at all independent. The money in the market's flow to and from the
> political leaders. So, to try and force 100% pollution cleanup, you
> have to charge somebody, and the market won't like that so the market
> will spend money to not have it happen.
It seems we're in agreement on that point. The political class is
protecting business interests because the two groups are joined at the
hip. But the group who most strongly argues for dissolving that union
is in your crosshairs. I don't get it.
>> We can't talk about anything in here without you pointing fingers at
>> free market advocates.
>
> I think you are living in a dream world if you are advocating free
> market economies.
I think those who think that government can regulate the market and
bring about all these wonderful things are too utopian to argue with.
>> Because you usually use it as an excuse to move in the OPPOSITE direction.
>>
>> Do you not understand how ass backwards it is to say, "there's no free
>> market, and there never will be one, so let's take the OPPOSITE stance
>> instead."
>
> I still don't understand.
>
> What would be your solution? Let the free market sell anything and
> everything and then have laws for how to use and dispose of the products
> placed on the consumers? Because, I'm proposing more laws governing the
> cleanliness of products sold, and you seem against that.
No, I'm not against anything except your suggestion that markets are to
blame for issues of criminal negligence.
>> I think it's dangerous to label anything "free market" when it's
>> largely the opposite of free market. Just like my socialism example
>> above. It's an intentional misrepresentation designed to promote one's
>> agenda.
>>
>> No one's saying you should throw the baby out with the bathwater.
>> What I am saying is that when something occurs that's anti-free
>> market, it makes no sense to blame free market policies. The BP spill
>> is the direct result of anti-free market policies.
>>
>> To blame free market economists is like blaming the environmentalists
>> who have been warning everybody all along that offshore drilling isn't
>> safe..."yeah but they won't let us drill on land...it's their fault."
>
> I'm not blaming free market economists. I'm blaming our market as it
> exists today. I'm sorry. I just don't see how the term free market
> holds any validity. Its theoretical at best and how could it bring
> anything to the table that would actually be acceptable.
It's far less theoretical than the notion that governments can prevent
atrocities like this from occurring. There has never EVER been a
demonstration that government regulation can stave off fraud,
negligence, pollution, etc. In fact, governments have historically been
the prime accomplice in all those things. And before you say "that's
all in the past and we do things right these days," let me point to the
fact that the federal government is presently BP's number one protector.
The populace almost universally wants their heads on a silver platter,
but the CEOs of that company, who probably cut costs knowing the risks
they were taking on, will still go home to their mansions without a
single worry that their actions will be called into question.
>
> Its like advocating for a libertarian point of view. Its a great idea,
> but it holds no weight at all in discussions, because it just won't
> happen. We have what we have.
>
> Basically, I'm saying, either we throw the baby out with the bath water
> and actually have a free market, or you need to discuss what are actual
> solutions that can help solve problems as they exist today.
I've discussed some here and there. For starters, lifting the $75M cap.
Then, after you do that, direct BP to pay damages and force them to
clean up the contamination they're responsible for (instead, the
government wants to seize that money directly so they can distribute it
to their political allies under the guise of recovery efforts). Then,
launch a criminal investigation to uncover criminal negligence. Hold
decision-makers accountable for their decisions.
All of those things in that paragraph, by the way, are illegal. That
is, the government CAN'T do those things because federal law prohibits
them from doing them. So, obviously I'm talking about changing laws
here rather than just executive branch decisions.
I also think we need to take the "libertarian" position, as you call it,
of driving a wedge between the state and the corporate world. The
regulators, if they're going to exist, shouldn't be best buddies with
the people they're regulating. Regulatory policymaking shouldn't be in
the hands of lawyers whose primary skill is to con voters.
You talk about how free market solutions are unrealizable. I'd counter
with this -- the concept of a fair and just government that looks out
for the people instead of their own political interests is a MYTH. As
you say, it's only "theoretical".
galen...@yahoo.com
> galen...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> In my opinion, this is where we disagree. In today's markets, they are
>> not, at all independent. The money in the market's flow to and from the
>> political leaders. So, to try and force 100% pollution cleanup, you
>> have to charge somebody, and the market won't like that so the market
>> will spend money to not have it happen.
>
> It seems we're in agreement on that point. The political class is
> protecting business interests because the two groups are joined at the
> hip. But the group who most strongly argues for dissolving that union
> is in your crosshairs. I don't get it.
Cool.
>>> We can't talk about anything in here without you pointing fingers at
>>> free market advocates.
>>
>> I think you are living in a dream world if you are advocating free
>> market economies.
>
> I think those who think that government can regulate the market and
> bring about all these wonderful things are too utopian to argue with.
Touche...
>>> Because you usually use it as an excuse to move in the OPPOSITE direction.
>>>
>>> Do you not understand how ass backwards it is to say, "there's no free
>>> market, and there never will be one, so let's take the OPPOSITE stance
>>> instead."
>>
>> I still don't understand.
>>
>> What would be your solution? Let the free market sell anything and
>> everything and then have laws for how to use and dispose of the products
>> placed on the consumers? Because, I'm proposing more laws governing the
>> cleanliness of products sold, and you seem against that.
>
> No, I'm not against anything except your suggestion that markets are
> to blame for issues of criminal negligence.
Let me try it a different way. The quest for profits without a
conscience is the issue.
>>> I think it's dangerous to label anything "free market" when it's
>>> largely the opposite of free market. Just like my socialism example
>>> above. It's an intentional misrepresentation designed to promote one's
>>> agenda.
>>>
>>> No one's saying you should throw the baby out with the bathwater.
>>> What I am saying is that when something occurs that's anti-free
>>> market, it makes no sense to blame free market policies. The BP spill
>>> is the direct result of anti-free market policies.
>>>
>>> To blame free market economists is like blaming the environmentalists
>>> who have been warning everybody all along that offshore drilling isn't
>>> safe..."yeah but they won't let us drill on land...it's their fault."
>>
>> I'm not blaming free market economists. I'm blaming our market as it
>> exists today. I'm sorry. I just don't see how the term free market
>> holds any validity. Its theoretical at best and how could it bring
>> anything to the table that would actually be acceptable.
>
> It's far less theoretical than the notion that governments can prevent
> atrocities like this from occurring. There has never EVER been a
> demonstration that government regulation can stave off fraud,
I don't get your assertion. What do the accounting rules that in place
do?
> negligence,
Not sure if I can come up with a reasonable example of this, but I would
guess there are actually plenty.
> pollution
What are emission standards for cars doing then?
> , etc. In fact, governments have historically been the prime
> accomplice in all those things.
Well, that's probably true. I don't believe governments have any
conscience. But, the pressures from the populace to put regulations in
place can make them look like they have a conscience.
> And before you say "that's all in the past and we do things right
> these days," let me point to the fact that the federal government is
> presently BP's number one protector. The populace almost universally
> wants their heads on a silver platter, but the CEOs of that company,
> who probably cut costs knowing the risks they were taking on, will
> still go home to their mansions without a single worry that their
> actions will be called into question.
Yes. I'm pretty sure that now the cap is complete and nobody can
actually see any damage, this will go quietly as the damage continues
for many decades.
>> Its like advocating for a libertarian point of view. Its a great idea,
>> but it holds no weight at all in discussions, because it just won't
>> happen. We have what we have.
>>
>> Basically, I'm saying, either we throw the baby out with the bath water
>> and actually have a free market, or you need to discuss what are actual
>> solutions that can help solve problems as they exist today.
>
> I've discussed some here and there. For starters, lifting the $75M
> cap. Then, after you do that, direct BP to pay damages and force them
> to clean up the contamination they're responsible for (instead, the
> government wants to seize that money directly so they can distribute
> it to their political allies under the guise of recovery efforts).
> Then, launch a criminal investigation to uncover criminal negligence.
> Hold decision-makers accountable for their decisions.
>
> All of those things in that paragraph, by the way, are illegal. That
> is, the government CAN'T do those things because federal law prohibits
> them from doing them. So, obviously I'm talking about changing laws
> here rather than just executive branch decisions.
Yes, I'd agree here. Those are good changes.
> I also think we need to take the "libertarian" position, as you call
> it, of driving a wedge between the state and the corporate world. The
> regulators, if they're going to exist, shouldn't be best buddies with
> the people they're regulating. Regulatory policymaking shouldn't be
> in the hands of lawyers whose primary skill is to con voters.
I couldn't agree more. I don't know if we can ever solve that, which is
one of the biggest issues we have.
> You talk about how free market solutions are unrealizable. I'd
> counter with this -- the concept of a fair and just government that
> looks out for the people instead of their own political interests is a
> MYTH. As you say, it's only "theoretical".
A fair and just government doesn't exist. A populace that puts pressure
on the gov. to be fair and just is the only way to make the gov look
like it is fair and just. But, the populace's mindshare is guided by
the government (ie, we believe what they want us to believe), so, we
ain't really got a chance.
How do we start up a free market economy??? :-)
MZ
>> demonstration that government regulation can stave off fraud,
>
> I don't get your assertion. What do the accounting rules that in place
> do?
>
>> negligence,
>
> Not sure if I can come up with a reasonable example of this, but I would
> guess there are actually plenty.
>
>> pollution
>
> What are emission standards for cars doing then?
The point I was trying to make was that these things all exist even in
the presence of government regulation. In fact, some might argue that
these things are worse than they ever were, all while government
regulation is at an all time high.
Ray O'Hara
"MZ" <ma...@nospam.void> wrote in message
news:IqGdndMILaPHFPTR...@giganews.com...
the problem was they bribed the inspectors to overlook the regulation
violations.
MZ
One of many problems. Obviously the bigger issue is that the
regulations didn't take into account the fact that the human race was
evidently not technologically equipped to handle accidents in a timely
fashion. In other words, either the regulators (ie. politicians) were
crooked or were ignorant. Probably both. I don't expect a room full of
lawyers to have expertise in every scientific endeavor there is. Yet
they're put in a position where they have to. The whole idea of
political regulation is dumb for that reason alone.
MZ
> Maybe in 1979, but since, every effective regulation/regulatory agency, has been
> systematically weakened, or destroyed.
> The stuff that's been done in the past 18 months, is more window dressing than anything.
> The Corporations still, basically, can do whatever they want.
The corporations always have done whatever they wanted. Since the
beginning of frickin' time. Regulations actually contribute to that.
See BP and their ability to weasel out of litigation -- the very fabric
of the checks and balances system. Thank you regulations. The
government has effectively said, "If they obeyed regulations, then they
did nothing wrong." You know they did something wrong. I know they did
something wrong. Everybody knows they did something wrong. But if the
regulations indicate, in some sort of ass backwards way, that they did
everything by the book, then in this bizzarro world country, they did
nothing wrong. Crazy, huh?
And yes, government regulation is waaaaaaaay deeper today than it ever
was. Probably by a factor of 10. The best indicator of how prevalent
and widespread regulation is in this country is the number of lawyers on
retainer by corporations. :)