The Urgency Of Now! - GoFuckYourself.com

BFT3K · 05-25-2010, 05:47 AM

If Obama doesn't harness the momentum of the recent and absurd supreme court decision that corporations should be treated as individual citizens, coupled with the recent coal mining disaster (based upon greed, deregulation and a lack of oversight), coupled with the BP oil disaster (also based upon greed, deregulation and a lack of oversight) to finally force a new direction regarding our energy policies, along with new regulations regarding overreaching corporate influence and power, then he is not embracing "the urgency of now" - a phrase he often referenced in his speeches.

If he can't use the above, to stage a sea-shift, then he is either incapable to lead, or maybe it is already just too late to prevent our country from being fully owned by corporations, and even the President of the United States is nothing more than a powerless actor in a cynical game of deception.

LoveSandra · 05-25-2010, 05:48 AM

obama is gay

05-25-2010, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

If Obama doesn't harness the momentum of the recent and absurd supreme court decision that corporations should be treated as individual citizens, coupled with the recent coal mining disaster (based upon greed, deregulation and a lack of oversight), coupled with the BP oil disaster (also based upon greed, deregulation and a lack of oversight) to finally force a new direction regarding our energy policies, along with new regulations regarding overreaching corporate influence and power, then he is not embracing "the urgency of now" - a phrase he often referenced in his speeches.

If he can't use the above, to stage a sea-shift, then he is either incapable to lead, or maybe it is already just too late to prevent our country from being fully owned by corporations, and even the President of the United States is nothing more than a powerless actor in a cynical game of deception.

BFT3K · 05-25-2010, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoveSandra

obama is gay

You really do have one of the most disgusting avatars I have ever had the displeasure of seeing.

LoveSandra · 05-25-2010, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

You really do have one of the most disgusting avatars I have ever had the displeasure of seeing.

i`m glade that you like it

BFT3K · 05-25-2010, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vexes

Is that supposed to be a "Captain Obvious" reference?

Coup · 05-25-2010, 06:01 AM

He's too busy sucking BP's shriveled british cock for all that.

u-Bob · 05-25-2010, 06:01 AM

http://mises.org/daily/4331
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

Quote:

It was 21 years ago that the Exxon Valdez leaked oil and unleashed torrents of environmental hysteria. Rothbard got it right in his piece "Why Not Feel Sorry for Exxon?"

After the British Petroleum?hired oil rig exploded last week, the environmentalists went nuts yet again, using the occasion to flail a private corporation and wail about the plight of the "ecosystem," which somehow managed to survive and thrive after the Exxon debacle.

The comparison is complicated by how much worse this event is for BP. Eleven people died. BP market shares have been pummeled. So long as the leak persists, the company loses 5,000?10,000 barrels a day.

BP will be responsible for cleanup costs far exceeding the federal limit of $75 million on liability for damages. The public relations nightmare will last for a decade or more. In the end, the costs could reach $100 billion, nearly wrecking the company and many other businesses.

It should be obvious that BP is by far the leading victim, but I've yet to see a single expression of sadness for the company and its losses. Indeed, the words of disgust for BP are beyond belief. The DailyKos sums it up: "BP: Go f*** yourselves." Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said that the government intended to keep "its boot on BP's neck."

How about reality? The incident is a tragedy for BP and all the subcontractors involved. It will probably wreck the company, a company that has long provided the fuel that runs our cars, runs our industries, and keeps alive the very body of modern life. The idea that BP should be hated and denounced is preposterous; there is every reason to express great sadness for what has happened.

It is not as if BP profits by oil leaks, or that anyone reveled in the chance to dump its precious oil all over the ocean. BP gains nothing from this. Its own CEO has worked for years to try to prevent precisely this kind of accident from occurring, and done so not out of the desire to comply with regulations, but just because it is good business practice.

In contrast to those who are weeping, we might ask who is happy about the disaster:

1. the environmentalists, with their fear mongering and hatred of modern life, and
2. the government, which treats every capitalist producer as a bird to be plucked.

The environmentalists are thrilled because they get yet another chance to wail and moan about the plight of their beloved marshes and other allegedly sensitive land. The loss of fish and marine life is sad, but it is not as if it will not come back: after the Exxon Valdez disaster, the fishing was better than ever in just one year.

The main advantage to the environmentalists is their propaganda victory in having yet another chance to rail against the evils of oil producers and ocean drilling. If they have their way, oil prices would be double or triple, there would never be another refinery built, and all development of the oceans would stop in the name of "protecting" things that do human beings not one bit of good.

The core economic issue concerning the environment is really about liability. In a world of private property, if you soil someone else's property, you bear the liability. But what about in a world in which government owns vast swaths, and the oceans are considered the commons of everyone? It becomes extremely difficult to assess damages to the environment at all.
"The liability for environmental damage should be 100% at least."

There is also a profound problem with federal government limits on liability. That is central planning gone mad. The liability for environmental damage should be 100% at least. Such a system would match a company's policies to the actual risk of doing damage. Lower limits would inspire companies to be less concerned about damage to others than they should be, in the same way that a company with a bailout guarantee faces a moral hazard to be less efficient than it would be in a free market.

But such a liability rule presumes ownership, so that owners themselves are in a position to enter into fair bargaining, and there can be some objective test. There is no objective test when the oceans are collectively owned and where huge amounts of territory are government owned.

And it is precisely the government and the Obama administration that gain from the incident. The regulators get yet another lease on life. They are already sending thousands of people to "save" the region. "Every American affected by this spill should know this: your government will do whatever it takes for as long as it takes to stop this crisis," Obama said.

Are we really supposed to believe that government is better able to deal with this disaster than private industry?

Meanwhile, the Obama administration must be thrilled to have an old-fashioned change of subject, so that we don't have to notice every single day that its economic stimulus has been an incredible flop, with unemployment higher today than a year ago and the depression still persisting.

And why, by the way, when every natural disaster is hailed by the Keynesian media for at least having the stimulative effect of rebuilding, is nothing like this said about the oil spill? At least in this case, losses seem to be recognized as losses.

The abstraction called the "ecosystem" ? which never seems to include mankind or civilization ? has done far less for us than the oil industry, and the factories, planes, trains, and automobiles it fuels. The greatest tragedy here belongs to BP and its subsidiaries, and the private enterprises affected by the losses that no one intended. If the result is a shutdown of drilling and further regulation of private enterprise, we only end up letting the oil spill win.

BFT3K · 05-25-2010, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

http://mises.org/daily/4331
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

Wow, what a biased load of shit that read was.

Can I get my 5 minutes back now please?

Caligari · 05-25-2010, 06:18 AM

Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. is a BP Operative.

In any case as coup said, obama unfortunately is sucking BP dick right now.

"Brother, can you spare some change?"

"Sorry man, but I do have some BP stock I can sell you real cheap."

u-Bob · 05-25-2010, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

Wow, what a biased load of shit that read was.

Can I get my 5 minutes back now please?

A GFY user posted basically the same (as Llew Rockwell) in another thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BestXXXPorn

I just learned today that the oil companies are only liable for damages caused to everyone UP TO $75M ... the government covers the rest...

Apparently there's an $0.08 tax on every barrel to cover it and there's currently about $1B in the fund...

That's fucking BS no wonder they didn't install the safety valve thing... They don't have to face the full consequences of a disaster!

The $0.08 tax should go away and oil companies should be fully liable for every fucking cent... If they were fully liable I guarantee you they would have put that valve in... too big of a risk NOT to but if you only have to be liable for a fraction of the damages what's the incentive to pay the extra cost up front?

The real problem is that in our current mixed economy, big corporations have no incentive to be careful and prevent huge disasters like the current BP oil leak. Corporations are only liable for damages upto $75m, instead of the full 100% as the should be. The rest of the damages are covered by.... normal citizens, the taxpayer....

In a pure capitalist system, in a 100% free market, corporations would be liable for 100% of the damages and would have a better incentive to prevent disasters.

This is what Llew Rockwell was talking about in his article....

u-Bob · 05-25-2010, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caligari

Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. is a BP Operative.

reread the article

CaptainHowdy · 05-25-2010, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoveSandra

obama is gay

I'd hit him...

Caligari · 05-25-2010, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

reread the article

Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. is a BP Operative.

Slappin Fish · 05-25-2010, 07:57 AM

Quote:

How about reality? The incident is a tragedy for BP and all the subcontractors involved. It is not as if BP profits by oil leaks, or that anyone reveled in the chance to dump its precious oil all over the ocean. BP gains nothing from this.

Hard to cry crocodile tears for a company that made a record 6 Billion dollar profit last quarter by abusing its dominant position in the UK and not passing on effects of falling global oil prices to motorist.

Quote:

Its own CEO has worked for years to try to prevent precisely this kind of accident from occurring, and done so not out of the desire to comply with regulations, but just because it is good business practice.

The CEO worked hard?!?

Honestly, who gives a shit?

maybe instead of working hard he should have allocated funds, than they wouldn't be here thinking about plugging the hole with golf balls and shredded tyres..

woj · 05-25-2010, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

A GFY user posted basically the same (as Llew Rockwell) in another thread:

The real problem is that in our current mixed economy, big corporations have no incentive to be careful and prevent huge disasters like the current BP oil leak. Corporations are only liable for damages upto $75m, instead of the full 100% as the should be. The rest of the damages are covered by.... normal citizens, the taxpayer....

In a pure capitalist system, in a 100% free market, corporations would be liable for 100% of the damages and would have a better incentive to prevent disasters.

This is what Llew Rockwell was talking about in his article....

the damages are covered by the $0.08 tax on every barrel, which is in a way just an insurance policy, all oil companies pay for it, then if something bad happens the clean up costs are covered by the $$ in the fund, exactly the same way that insurance works...

u-Bob · 05-25-2010, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

the damages are covered by the $0.08 tax on every barrel, which is in a way just an insurance policy, all oil companies pay for it, then if something bad happens the clean up costs are covered by the $$ in the fund, exactly the same way that insurance works...

The $0.08 tax that goes into the fund is a price determined by politicians (bought and paid for by the big oil companies), the $0.08 is not a market determined price. In a free market the price for a $75m limited liability insurance policy would be a lot higher.

woj · 05-25-2010, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

The $0.08 tax that goes into the fund is a price determined by politicians (bought and paid for by the big oil companies), the $0.08 is not a market determined price. In a free market the price for a $75m limited liability insurance policy would be a lot higher.

I'm sure there was some care used to determine the $0.08 value, it's not like they just randomly picked that, it was probably debated for months until politicians, environmental groups, oil companies, etc reached an agreement...

It may be high or low, no one really knows, if it turns out to be too low, I'm sure steps will be taken to raise the price of this insurance policy.... so oil companies will end up paying for any clean up costs anyway..

BestXXXPorn · 05-25-2010, 08:44 AM

Hey thanks for quoting me I was going to do the same, lol

And yes, oil companies should be 100% accountable! Anyone who says differently is asking for another disaster.

It appears as if people don't completely read the article before posting comments... It CLEARLY states that BP should be held MORE accountable than it is now...

Slappin Fish · 05-25-2010, 08:51 AM

Quote:

There is no objective test when the oceans are collectively owned and where huge amounts of territory are government owned.

Article is full of shortcuts, if the ocean was privately owned they would be 100% liable.

Really?!?

What happens when they own the whole Gulf of mexico and tell you our land our problem, neighbor Exxon doesn't mind of course. Wouldn't that make them 0% liable?

BestXXXPorn · 05-25-2010, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slappin Fish

Article is full of shortcuts, if the ocean was privately owned they would be 100% liable.

Really?!?

What happens when they own the whole Gulf of mexico and tell you our land our problem, neighbor Exxon doesn't mind of course. Wouldn't that make them 0% liable?

You misread the article...

Slappin Fish · 05-25-2010, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BestXXXPorn

You misread the article...

Misread u-Bob's article? Where?

Slappin Fish · 05-25-2010, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BestXXXPorn

... It CLEARLY states that BP should be held MORE accountable than it is now...

It states that the only way for BP to be more accountable is through private ownership of the ocean.

Quote:

..such a liability rule presumes ownership. There is no objective test when the oceans are collectively owned and where huge amounts of territory are government owned.

Yes BP should be more accountable, private ownership being the way to achieve it is the shorcut.

BFT3K · 05-25-2010, 09:03 AM

Just because people do not agree with the misguided logic behind the article, does not mean opinions will change because you ask us to re-read it. It is clearly a pro-corporation, anti-environment and anti-government regulations article. It was the first time I read it, and it continues to be so.

BestXXXPorn · 05-25-2010, 09:44 AM

It's not misguided logic it's logic based on sound reason... not logic based on emotion and feelings (such as that which is so prevalent now)...

Exactly what specific points are you disputing about the article?

Slappin Fish mentioned the owning of the Ocean... more specifically an oil company owning the Gulf...

First, the ocean would most likely consist of large parcels of land with the water itself being a transient medium (much like air)... Much of the reef areas would be held as "National Ocean" (read National Forest) so it would be protected "land". Other individuals and corporations would own parcels of the ocean. I'm sure there would also be caps on just much you could own.

Now, when an incident like this goes down every person that gets oil in their parcel would be filing a class action lawsuit against the oil company because they have been polluted... Not to mention all the government fines associated with destroying a National Park... This is where the liability comes in. The oil company would be 100% liable for everything and it can all be quantified. It's all a property rights system... the way land works now. However, the government declared the ocean "common" ground before we had the means to develop a solution to "dividing up the ocean" in any way.

Remember you wouldn't be owning the ocean or water or fish or anything like that, you would only own the space...

I'd be happy to clarify any additional points in that article. BFT3K, you're obviously an opinionated intelligent person. It may be worth another read as it does make some very interesting points, regardless of what side of the fence you're on.

It's from Mises so of course it's going to be pro capitalism and anti government interference... I'm a Libertarian so it's inline with my views. What you need to glean from it is that the article is promoting MORE CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY, not less. It's saying the burden should NOT be on the tax payers and that BP should be 100% liable for the damage it has caused. Instead the way the legislation is now the tax payers carry the burden and the oil companies make decisions NOT to install safety measures because the government is going to pick up the tab.

u-Bob · 05-25-2010, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

I'm sure there was some care used to determine the $0.08 value, it's not like they just randomly picked that,

Remember the bailout?

""It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number.""
http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/23/bai...23bailout.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

it was probably debated for months until politicians, environmental groups, oil companies, etc reached an agreement...

Only the market can determine prices. Panels of politicians, experts, lobbyists etc can never replace the market. The soviets tried it and failed, Hugo Chavez tried it and failed,...
For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...lation_problem

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

It may be high or low, no one really knows

Exactly.
In a free market system, the price mechanism would be able to do its job and take care of that.

u-Bob · 05-25-2010, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

anti-government regulations article. It was the first time I read it, and it continues to be so.

Of course it is. One of the big problems we face these days is the lack of responsibility people take for their actions. People expect to be taken care of from cradle to grave, they expect the government to hold their hand every step of the way, they look to government to fix everything that's broken and turn to the government again to fix things the government broke when trying to fix other things....

The end result is a huge government that's unable to solve any problems but creates many more (while at the same time serving the interests of large corporations with enough money and the right connections).

u-Bob · 05-25-2010, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slappin Fish

Article is full of shortcuts, if the ocean was privately owned they would be 100% liable.

Really?!?

The article talks about the problems caused by central planning: First of all, without free market conditions to determine prices there can't be any economic calculation.
Second, the limited liability is caused (as the article clearly stated) by government regulations.

Ethersync · 05-25-2010, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

http://mises.org/daily/4331
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

Too much logic involved. The plebs will be confused

fatfoo · 05-25-2010, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoveSandra

obama is gay

I read Obama's book called "The Audacity of Hope" and he writes in his book that "he is not gay." Good luck.

05-25-2010, 05:47 AM	#1
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764	The Urgency Of Now! If Obama doesn't harness the momentum of the recent and absurd supreme court decision that corporations should be treated as individual citizens, coupled with the recent coal mining disaster (based upon greed, deregulation and a lack of oversight), coupled with the BP oil disaster (also based upon greed, deregulation and a lack of oversight) to finally force a new direction regarding our energy policies, along with new regulations regarding overreaching corporate influence and power, then he is not embracing "the urgency of now" - a phrase he often referenced in his speeches. If he can't use the above, to stage a sea-shift, then he is either incapable to lead, or maybe it is already just too late to prevent our country from being fully owned by corporations, and even the President of the United States is nothing more than a powerless actor in a cynical game of deception.

05-25-2010, 06:18 AM	#10
Caligari Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: At The Mountains Of Madness Posts: 5,414	Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. is a BP Operative. In any case as coup said, obama unfortunately is sucking BP dick right now. "Brother, can you spare some change?" "Sorry man, but I do have some BP stock I can sell you real cheap." __________________ ATTN Webmasters Cruel Bucks - LIVE Gonzo Does Not Pay ------------------------------------------------ Animal Rescue Click Here to Feed An Animal for Free

05-25-2010, 08:44 AM	#19
BestXXXPorn Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Asheville, NC Posts: 2,277	Hey thanks for quoting me I was going to do the same, lol And yes, oil companies should be 100% accountable! Anyone who says differently is asking for another disaster. It appears as if people don't completely read the article before posting comments... It CLEARLY states that BP should be held MORE accountable than it is now... __________________ ICQ: 258-202-811 \| Email: eric{at}bestxxxporn.com Last edited by BestXXXPorn; 05-25-2010 at 08:48 AM..

05-25-2010, 09:03 AM	#24
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764	Just because people do not agree with the misguided logic behind the article, does not mean opinions will change because you ask us to re-read it. It is clearly a pro-corporation, anti-environment and anti-government regulations article. It was the first time I read it, and it continues to be so. Last edited by BFT3K; 05-25-2010 at 09:05 AM..

05-25-2010, 09:44 AM	#25
BestXXXPorn Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Asheville, NC Posts: 2,277	It's not misguided logic it's logic based on sound reason... not logic based on emotion and feelings (such as that which is so prevalent now)... Exactly what specific points are you disputing about the article? Slappin Fish mentioned the owning of the Ocean... more specifically an oil company owning the Gulf... First, the ocean would most likely consist of large parcels of land with the water itself being a transient medium (much like air)... Much of the reef areas would be held as "National Ocean" (read National Forest) so it would be protected "land". Other individuals and corporations would own parcels of the ocean. I'm sure there would also be caps on just much you could own. Now, when an incident like this goes down every person that gets oil in their parcel would be filing a class action lawsuit against the oil company because they have been polluted... Not to mention all the government fines associated with destroying a National Park... This is where the liability comes in. The oil company would be 100% liable for everything and it can all be quantified. It's all a property rights system... the way land works now. However, the government declared the ocean "common" ground before we had the means to develop a solution to "dividing up the ocean" in any way. Remember you wouldn't be owning the ocean or water or fish or anything like that, you would only own the space... I'd be happy to clarify any additional points in that article. BFT3K, you're obviously an opinionated intelligent person. It may be worth another read as it does make some very interesting points, regardless of what side of the fence you're on. It's from Mises so of course it's going to be pro capitalism and anti government interference... I'm a Libertarian so it's inline with my views. What you need to glean from it is that the article is promoting MORE CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY, not less. It's saying the burden should NOT be on the tax payers and that BP should be 100% liable for the damage it has caused. Instead the way the legislation is now the tax payers carry the burden and the oil companies make decisions NOT to install safety measures because the government is going to pick up the tab. __________________ ICQ: 258-202-811 \| Email: eric{at}bestxxxporn.com

05-25-2010, 05:48 AM	#2
LoveSandra So Fucking Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Just Blow Me Posts: 10,551	obama is gay

05-25-2010, 06:01 AM	#7
Coup 🚨 PBBC International 🚨 Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: /👁\ Posts: 9,931	He's too busy sucking BP's shriveled british cock for all that.