Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Is Government Too Big?

Recs

13

April 29, 2010 – Comments (49) | RELATED TICKERS: BP , RIG , USA

I don't think so. In fact, with the Deepwater Horizon oil rig now spilling 200,000 bbls/ day according to an NPR report at 5:00 this evening, and BP and RIG acknowledging they cannot stop the leak any time soon, BP has turned for help to the United States of America.

Right now, your Government is the only thing standing between you and the cost of losing a 2 billion dollar fishing industry, a subsequent ecological disaster, and the loss of property values on the coast and any coastline industrys that may be disrupted by the spill.

The oil could make landfall tonight.

I hope Gov't is big enough.

49 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 29, 2010 at 7:26 PM, devoish (98.06) wrote:

Crap.

This was probably one of my worst posts ever.

The leak cannot be 200,000 bbls/day. The earlier number I heard of 5000 bbls/day is more realistic.

And the United States is not the only thing standing in the way of the costs of this leak.

BP has leak response teams working and BP is trying to seal the well and failing but could still succeed.

The USA is adding to what BP is doing, not replacing what BP is doing.

I still hope Gov't has enough size and capability to pick up where BP's efforts are falling short.

Report this comment
#2) On April 29, 2010 at 7:32 PM, ChrisGraley (29.87) wrote:

Yes, the government is extremely too big!

It's inefficient.

It's ineffective.

It's impotent.

I know you are trying to play up the fact of the oil hitting our shores vs the oil hitting Mexican shores as a bigger deal, but it doesn't make a difference to anyone not politically motivated.

I'm sure you are willing to start the trials for the be-headings now, but most of the people in the real world are waiting to see what happened.

I know you live in the world where all industry is evil, but I've worked for a couple that were not evil.

You'll destroy more in your witch trial than you'll create in your imaginary utopia and you don't care.

It's more about being politcally powerfull to you than being right.

It's sad.

Your sad.

You don't care.

And we are back to full circle where you tell everyone else how to run their life.

 

 

 

Report this comment
#3) On April 29, 2010 at 8:09 PM, blueberrygoo (73.43) wrote:

I know very little about off shore drilling... however I heard that in some other parts of the world the gov'ts regulate the drilling companies differently in that they require additional shut off measures in the well in the event something like this happens.  Can someone verify this is true?  Would this spill be a non-issue at this point if we simply required some preventative steps / equipment?  If it's true then I say we really don't need a big government.  Just a smarter one.

Report this comment
#4) On April 29, 2010 at 8:13 PM, LANaturist (99.20) wrote:

It's now reported to be 5,000 BPD which is a bit more than 200,000 gallons per day, Not 200,000 BPD. 

 

 

Report this comment
#5) On April 29, 2010 at 8:40 PM, ChrisGraley (29.87) wrote:

Blueberrygoo, there are saftey measures in place, but a key safety measure failed.

I don't think BP wanted the platform to explode and I don't think that they neglected the platfom enough to make it explode.

I do think that devoish will jump in at any point he thinks he can convince anyone that industry is evil.

 

Report this comment
#6) On April 29, 2010 at 9:13 PM, devoish (98.06) wrote:

Lanaturalist, thanks. I knew I heard 200,000. I just didn't hear them switch units of measurement.

Chris,

I don't match the voluime of venom you and flea and hopelesslylost relentlessly bombard us with. I would rather hear Alstry.

I will tell you again.

Beyond supply and and demand, there are no economic laws. Eeverything else economic is arbitrary decision. Just choices. Not laws.

And I did not attack BP for having a leak, or any other corporate entity. I attacked the moronic relentless biased posturing of anti-Government zealots.

I could have gone on longer about being thankful there was an entity, a Government, that taxes us to sit idly by and bail our butts out when private industries could not solve the problems they cannot afford to budget for and still be competitive with the competition that does not. You know - gaining a financial competitive advantage by doing a poorer job in a circumstance that failure causes great harm to ChrisGrayley who justs wants to be left alone, not have an oil slick wash up on his favorite fishing rock, or destroy his hard earned property value.

And he is worried about Government overstepping his property line?

It's more about being politcally powerfull to you than being right.

Everyone lies, says the liar - do not presume your motivations are mine.

In this case I am right. The biggest risk now is that the USA does not have the ability to finish the job that BP cannot finish on its own. The risk is that Government is too small - too ineffective, to impotent to save your waterfront property that you value, or the coral reef whose value I recognise, or the fishiing industry many of us might miss.

Whether the truth fits your politics or not.

Report this comment
#7) On April 29, 2010 at 9:18 PM, RainierMan (75.70) wrote:

I had exactly the same thought, Devo. Why is the infamous, much more effective than government private sector not stepping in here to pay the millions to handle this mess quickly and effectively? Why isn't the free market resolving this? 

I also note that initially BP dissed NOAA's estimate of the leak--government is just so stupid--now they say the NOAA estimate was right on.

And when this mess hits the coast and wipes out various industries for a while, you can be sure the private sector is going to be whining for government help. 

I want to hear the arguments about how this could have been avoided with less government regulation.

 

Report this comment
#8) On April 29, 2010 at 9:28 PM, AvianFlu (34.32) wrote:

As long as humans (or any other species) exist, there will be impact on the environment of one sort or another. It may take the form of human-caused oil spills, or it may be cow-produced methane. Maybe it will be increases in hantavirus carrying rodents due to a particularly wet springtime.

I, for one, am willing to live with a certain amount of change in the earth's environment. The alternative is to eliminate all life forms on the planet. This might be a little draconian. However, I'm sure there are those that would appreciate an unchanging world...

Report this comment
#9) On April 29, 2010 at 9:42 PM, ChrisGraley (29.87) wrote:

I agree devoish!

Big government is the answer to everything!

You know what we need next? It's big hats!

Big hats that light up!

We can all sing campfire songs and all will be good as long as we get the political contributions

Next we need to beat the stupid people over the head!

It's not mean to mistreat people if you mistreat them for the right reasons!

We're liberals and part of the defininition is that we know what is better for them than they do!

 

 

 

 

Report this comment
#10) On April 29, 2010 at 10:13 PM, devoish (98.06) wrote:

Blueberrygoo,

In this accident a pressure differential control valve failed. I heard it described as having four seperate pressure differential check valves built into it. It is a realtively modern design having been put in service only 8 years ago. It seems to be an extraordinary failure. The NPR report I heard said that some other countries require an additional type of check valve, that responds to repeated attempts to close the first type if it fails.

Avianflu,

Yes. I am willing to live with some change too. I don't mind seeing smallpox wiped out. Other changes I don't like. I prefer to see the stars than the haze of electric lights, but there are places where the haze is ok and if it means enough to me I will leave the city. What is not ok is to see coastline after coastline destroyed when there are other energy choices.

MichaelinWA,

That our thoughts go to the question of "why isn't the celebrated private industry handling this on its own" is a reflection of the relentless anti-Government politicing by Flea and hopelesslylost and ChrisGrayley and the rest of the gone bananas bunch yet one can actually describe this post, this way - I do think that devoish will jump in at any point he thinks he can convince anyone that industry is evil. Perhaps the real truth lies closer to this - I do think that the gone bananas bunch will jump in at any point they think they can to convince anyone that Government is evil.

But hey, we all read the posts, we can all be the judge of what our own eyes tell us.

ChrisGrayley,

If the safety valve was not installed to save expenses, or not tested, or not repaired if it failed testing, then we move on to "evil" or at least criminally liable, wouldn't you say?

In the meantime it can just be an accident, and I can be hopeful Americans have provided the United States Government with the resources to protect our and Mexico's coastline and waterways from this accident.

How about you?

Report this comment
#11) On April 29, 2010 at 10:15 PM, FleaBagger (28.89) wrote:

"Why is the infamous, much more effective than government private sector not stepping in here to pay the millions to handle this mess quickly and effectively? Why isn't the free market resolving this?

... I want to hear the arguments about how this could have been avoided with less government regulation."

First of all, no one (as far as I know) has ever said disasters wouldn't occur if we had free markets. If you want a thought exercise about how the situation might be different without government involvement, read on.

Imagine that you could choose between paying your own health insurance premiums, or have them paid for you by someone who is forced to pay? Which would you choose? It would be better to have them paid for you, wouldn't it? If you think people would rather have their insurance premiums paid by someone else under extortion, you've answered your own question. No company is going to prepare for such a disaster as long as government steps in to help them with it when needed.

On the other hand, if there were no government, but a society of free people and true law, enforced by for-profit justice advocates, a company that failed to take needed precautions like this would take a big hit when restitution is extracted by the advocates of the free people whose shores and fishing waters were affected. A company that did not abide by restitution laws would not be welcome in a free society, and would have no opportunity for profit there at all. Of course, companies without government protection would take steps to prevent spills, because their insurance company would force them to, and spills do not help their bottom line anyway. The companies that do not behave responsibly would go out of business, were it not for government bailouts. 

Report this comment
#12) On April 29, 2010 at 10:30 PM, devoish (98.06) wrote:

Blueberrygoo,

Can someone verify this is true?  Would this spill be a non-issue at this point if we simply required some preventative steps / equipment?  If it's true then I say we really don't need a big government.  Just a smarter one.

I'd like to address this part of your reply also. Your legislature/Congress can be convinced by relentless anti government - Government is too big - politicing. Politicing that says not adding to industrys burdens is what you want. That says adding to industrys burdens costs jobs (and I wish the jobs trying to stop this disaster were being lost)  If that is what you have asked for, as the "gone bananas bunch" does, it should be no surprise that you have the Government they asked for. If you want a Government that can insist upon additional safety measures, you need to support your Gov't when they ask for them. Call you Representative and say "please ere on the side of caution".

Report this comment
#13) On April 29, 2010 at 10:46 PM, whereaminow (25.00) wrote:

The best part about this?  The U.S. oil industry was cartelized by the government under Progressive hero FDR.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#14) On April 29, 2010 at 11:31 PM, devoish (98.06) wrote:

Hopelesslylost, (did you ask me to stop calling you that?, if I missed it just say so).

The presence of a Government does not mean Government is the cause of the problem. In this case I am hoping that Government is big enough to step in for a private corporation and protect the private property of the people who are at risk. 

Flea 

On the other hand, if there were no government, but a society of free people and true law, - Is that Democratically elected free people and true law - or Government by some other name? enforced by for-profit justice advocates, - For ten bucks more, I'll judge in your favor - a company that failed to take needed precautions like this would take a big hit when restitution is extracted by the advocates of the free people - Congress - whose shores and fishing waters were affected. A company that did not abide by restitution laws would not be welcome in a free society,- How would you know until it was to late - and would have no opportunity for profit there at all. Of course, companies without government protection would take steps to prevent spills,- they did but the spill happened anyway - because their insurance company would force them to, - no insurance in this instance, would your not-Government force people to buy insurance they don't want- and spills do not help their bottom line anyway. - yet accidents do happen - The companies that do not behave responsibly would go out of business, were it not for government bailouts. - Are you saying this company did not behave responsibly? Do you know something we don't? Despite Chris's assertion otherwise, even I did not say that.

Just out of curiosity, since your whatever-you-call-it-without-calling-it-Government-plan seems to suggest that a company involved in a risky behaviour should be financially responsible to the partys it puts at risk what do you do for the partys it harms if it does not have insurance or the liquidation value to pay those claims. One of the strategys my State uses is to require a minimum level of insurance be carried to cover the potential damages, like in the case of automobiles. This way if someone drives their car through my house they can pay for a spackler (a profession I respect far more than investment banker by the way). Another strategy that my State uses is to require showing enough liquidation value to cover the cost of potential liability or restrict you from doing business. Some people say that unfairly restricts competition though. Another strategy my State uses is to require safety equipment be installed and inspected periodically in the hope of reducing the number of accidents. Sometimes it combines strategys. Actually I hate running the risk of having people talk my State out of performing these functions under the pretense that because it is a Government it is inherently a bad thing, no matter what brand name is telling me these same things -Republican, Conservative or Libertarian.

Report this comment
#15) On April 29, 2010 at 11:36 PM, RainierMan (75.70) wrote:

Flea: what country do you live in? Here in the United States, we are free enough that companies already can be sued. Guess, what; they operate anyway. Drug companies, medical device companies, tobacco companies, fraudulent financial companies....big oil companies like Exxon....they get sued all the time. They still repeat the same actions that got them into trouble in the past.

We have mining companies that kill their own workers, and nobody demands they go away.

Besides, a large contingent of the country believes we need fewer lawsuits, not more.

I don't think relying on the attorneys to find that societal equilibrium you're describing is going to work.

Anyway, even if we all go lawyer happy, stuff happens. There are going to be crises sometimes, and I think Devo's point was just that about the only entity with enough resources to help deal with the situation is the government.

 

 

 

 

Report this comment
#16) On April 30, 2010 at 12:07 AM, ChrisGraley (29.87) wrote:

devoish I haven't said anything in the last 2 years, but do you think you could eventually spell my name right?

I haven't said anything,  because I thought you would correct it eventually.

I know you feel like you  know more about life than I ever will, but if you call me evil you can you at least spell my name right?

 

Report this comment
#17) On April 30, 2010 at 12:20 AM, whereaminow (25.00) wrote:

devo,

I don't mind it.  There are hundreds of CAPS readers that appreciate my input and disagree with your assertion.

I thought big oil and big government were in bed together?  Am I wrong?  Or do you think that noble government servants work to protect us from Big Oil?  Or, even more ignorantly, do you think that only the other party is in bed with Big Oil while Democrats work tirelessly to keep them under control and protect the working man?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#18) On April 30, 2010 at 12:48 AM, whereaminow (25.00) wrote:

I honestly don't know this, so I am asking: who picks up the tab for the government's cleanup efforts?  If it's the taxpayers, how is that a good thing?  If evil Big Oil makes all these evil profits, why shouldnt' they foot the bill for the cleanup and go to jail if they don't?  See comment #13 for the answer.  Hmm, I guess government isn't a good thing after all.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#19) On April 30, 2010 at 1:08 AM, RainierMan (75.70) wrote:

David: hey, you and Obama think alike! Very cool. He too wants BP to pay the government back for cleaning up the spill. Great (Socialist?) minds think alike?

I think they should should also make a profit off of the spill. That's only fair.

 

Report this comment
#20) On April 30, 2010 at 1:17 AM, ralphmachio (26.18) wrote:

How much do they pay you to write this? Does anyone who is not employed by the government really want it to get bigger? Are they retarded? 

I'll write ridiculous blogs about how we need more mosquitos if they pay enough! 

Report this comment
#21) On April 30, 2010 at 1:21 AM, whereaminow (25.00) wrote:

MichaelinWA,

Actually, me and Corporatist Obama don't think alike.  I would have worked out those details before I sent the cleanup crew.  It doesn't take that long to negotaite a deal this important.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#22) On April 30, 2010 at 1:28 AM, whereaminow (25.00) wrote:

I would also point out that the Supreme Ruler doesn't have the Constitutional authority to assist a corporation in cleanup efforts.  Again, taxpayer money should not be used for such purposes.  Clean it up yourself or go to jail.  How hard is that?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#23) On April 30, 2010 at 2:10 AM, ralphmachio (26.18) wrote:

There's a reason you'd rather read Alstry, and it is that you are both paid by the same entity, if you are not the same entity! (Wouldn't that be hysterical) Is Alstry Devoish?  

David- your right! Most would rather hear from you, and doesn't argueing with Dev kinda have the feel of playing chess with a computer?(one that you can beat)There's just something so unnatural about a victim propping up the perpetrator. 

My theory is that Devalstry has a dope problem, and when he is jonesing he is Alstry, and when his CIA friend supplies him with a half a days supply, he reverts back to Devoish. Just an idea, what do you think?

Report this comment
#24) On April 30, 2010 at 2:12 AM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

devoish, I don't agree with you very often but I do appreciate that you saw an obvious error in the numbers and immediately corrected it.  That shows integrity.

This was a terrible accident, but it seems the market always overreacts.  I could be wrong, but RIG seems like a buy here to me.

Report this comment
#25) On April 30, 2010 at 2:20 AM, RainierMan (75.70) wrote:

David, all that's missing is a law to do it.

But I think that's a great idea. Let's pass a law so that we can throw someone in jail if they don't clean up their oil spills. I like it.

 

Report this comment
#26) On April 30, 2010 at 2:34 AM, ralphmachio (26.18) wrote:

Yeah, novel idea. You'd think any competent government not in collusion with the oil companies might have thought of that by now, huh? Sure, let's put em in jail. Sounds great. I'm sure the hearing will start tomorrow. 

And now, purple unicorn spotted flying over the Manhattan!   

 

Report this comment
#27) On April 30, 2010 at 2:42 AM, ralphmachio (26.18) wrote:

Actually, I'd be a liar if I didn't say the unicorn was orange... Purple unicorn! Ha! And you almost believed me! Well, the unicorn is orange, and I hope that does something for my credibility...

Report this comment
#28) On April 30, 2010 at 2:44 AM, RainierMan (75.70) wrote:

Ralph: of course it will never happen. Industry runs the country because money runs the country. Which is quite a feat since we supposedly also live in a socialist country.

Report this comment
#29) On April 30, 2010 at 3:44 AM, Mstinterestinman (21.00) wrote:

I dont agree with the total free market idea but I disagree that our government needs to grow much more we as people need to start asking it to operate more efficiently. Yes social protections and regulations are nessacary but waste is not.

Report this comment
#30) On April 30, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Mstinterestinman (21.00) wrote:

Also tragedy happens doesnt mean anyone is at fault hopefully the spill and damage can be contained.

Report this comment
#31) On April 30, 2010 at 8:08 AM, devoish (98.06) wrote:

ozzfan1316,

#29 and #30 -  I agree in principle except that I think after thirty years of corporate mouthpieces telling us that Gov't is the problem and shrinking Washington is the solution, perhaps that part is not true. Governmment was not big enough to respond to Katrina in large part due to leadership.

Think of the maintainance crew at your office. Ten years ago they finished vacuuming at 4:00am, then changed a few lightbulbs or sat down. Some executive saw them sitting and said "cut the waste" and one guy got fired and it was good because the light bulbs got changed and the floor still got vacuumed. When it snowed it took an extra 1/2 hour to get the parking lot cleared but it was probably still a net benefit. Nine years ago they finished vacuuming and changing bulbs and another executive saw them sitting and said "cut the waste" and another man got fired. The vacuuming continued to get done but it took longer and sometimes bulbs went unchanged long enough the engineers climbed on their own desks to do it. The snow took 1 and 1/2 hours to clear so a larger snow blower was purchased and now during the light snows you are using twice the fuel to clear a dusting of snow, and the snow blower does not help out with the light bulbs or vacuuming. Eight years ago when an executive went two days without a new lightbulb in the salesroom he demanded to know what happened from the maintainance chief. Now everybody has a crappy job arguing between departments, but Scott Adams is having fun and getting paid.

Notvuffett,

Thanks, for the compliment, and thanks for not always agreeing with me.

MichaelinWA, thanks for staying up all night with hopelesslylost.

Hopelesslylost,

I thought big oil and big government were in bed together?  Am I wrong? No. We are all in bed together. It is just time for big oill to stop hogging all the sheets.

I honestly don't know this, so I am asking: who picks up the tab for the government's cleanup efforts?  If it's the taxpayers, how is that a good thing?  If evil Big Oil makes all these evil profits, why shouldnt' they foot the bill for the cleanup and go to jail if they don't?  See comment #13 for the answer.  Hmm, I guess government isn't a good thing after all.

Actually, me and Corporatist Obama don't think alike.  I would have worked out those details before I sent the cleanup crew.  It doesn't take that long to negotaite a deal this important...

I would also point out that the Supreme Ruler doesn't have the Constitutional authority to assist a corporation in cleanup efforts.  Again, taxpayer money should not be used for such purposes.  Clean it up yourself or go to jail.  How hard is that?

David in Qatar

Calling BP and "big oil" "evil is not helpful. Unless you know better. This incidence is just an accident.

It is the Federal government's obligation to "provide for the common defense" whether the chemical attack is on purpose, due to neglect, or by accident is not discussed. It is the Federal government's obligation to "promote the general welfare" and allowing the shoreline of Louisiana to be damaged by this spill would not be "promoting the general welfare". Plus this oil is being delivered across State and Federal borders so it falls under Interstate Commerce too.

How does sending "big oil" to jail prevent the damage to the fishing industry, the coastlines or any number of lost livlihoods?

If a jail term is warranted due to a crime of commision or a crime of ommission then there needs to be willpower and support for the entity (in this case we will call that entity the Federal Government) that is intended to enforce that rule to do its job.

When Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich calls for an investigation I am sure you will be the loudest to whine about oppressive Gov't intervention.

ChrisGraley,

ChrisGraley, ChrisGraley, ChrisGraley, ChrisGraley, ChrisGraley,ChrisGraley, ChrisGraley,ChrisGraley. Honestly I have no idea why I keep putting that extra "y" in there.

Ralphmachio,

Yeah, novel idea. You'd think any competent government not in collusion with the oil companies might have thought of that by now, huh? Sure, let's put em in jail. Sounds great. I'm sure the hearing will start tomorrow. 

Your Government is a body of laws. When your Government tries to pass a law that requires an additional check valve or safety control will you support "big Government" or not?

If your Government tries to punish BP by passing a law retroactively and punishing BP for not meeting the standards of a regulation that did not exist will you support "big Government" or not ? In that circumstance I will not, just as I believe it is wrong for banks to raise interest rates on money you already borrowed as opposed to money you are about to borrow.

Report this comment
#32) On April 30, 2010 at 5:22 PM, RonChapmanJr (56.66) wrote:

ralphmachio - Obviously Devo gets paid by the government to write this, I thought that had been established long ago. 

Between trying to convince CAPS of global warming, that Obamacare was actually a good thing, and these types of blogs, he gives us the "government is good" line like clockwork.  I would hope no one would push this hard for government that isn't getting paid to do so.

Report this comment
#33) On April 30, 2010 at 5:25 PM, ralphmachio (26.18) wrote:

Who uses all the oil anyway? (The government) Why don't we all drive geo metros and Honda Civics that get 50 mpg? (Collusion between car and oil) Why don't we know about this obvious collusion? (Collusion between government and both auto and oil industries.)

You cannot effectively run a government unless you also control the markets which could destroy your government. You don't get as big as GM and Ford, making ridiculous land yachts, sucking three times the fuel as is necessary for daily transportation, for nearly 4 decades after the idea of peak oil. These things are allowed to happen by a government who is too busy fighting wars on drugs to notice the people making stupid gobs of cash selling and using more oil than is necessary. 

The large perpetrators are let to screw the world while the jails are filled with non-violent offenders.  That is because they make money putting innocent people in jail, as well as looking the other way for those who are such large offenders they eclipse the sun, because that too makes them profit, and in some cases on a personal level through bribes. 

We should have never become addicted to oil that we cannot create. 

Report this comment
#34) On April 30, 2010 at 5:53 PM, ralphmachio (26.18) wrote:

Ron- Nobody told me! I had to figure it out myself! There are two of them, I'm almost sure. One doesn't know the other hates me!

Report this comment
#35) On April 30, 2010 at 8:37 PM, devoish (98.06) wrote:

I fI had been you guys, arguing Gov't is the cause of all ills,  I wouldn't like me pointing out the obvious flaws in your arguments either.

How is it there is no libertarian utopia? - Even Libertarians cannot build one.

Long live Democracy and all its successes.

Report this comment
#36) On April 30, 2010 at 8:56 PM, ChrisGraley (29.87) wrote:

Liberalism has nothing to do with Democracy.

 

Report this comment
#37) On May 01, 2010 at 1:56 AM, FleaBagger (28.89) wrote:

Fellow libs: ease up on the ad hominem attacks on Dev. I've been guilty of that in the past, too, and I'm trying to change my ways. So far here he has not said that industry is evil, that Chris Graley is evil, or anything else deserving of vitriol. He is simply laboring under the mistaken impression that democracy is a decent, beneficial form of government. 

Dev - over the last thirty years government expenditure has increased in absolute terms, as a percentage of GDP, and when adjusted for inflation. Despite small-government rhetoric, the government that was supposed to help New Orleans during Katrina was one of the biggest governments in the history of the world, by almost any metric you care to choose. 

All of the problems that you ascribe to small government, and that actually took place under a very big government, were all during our time as a democracy. You think government failed because it was not big enough; you also think that democracy is wonderful. Well, democracy failed you during the housing/derivatives bubble, during Katrina, during the run-up to war in '03, in the airports and airplanes on 9-11-01, and countless other times. Big government. Big, democratic government.

When big government supporters call for more money, more regulation, more oversight, more authority, and say that "next time will be different" if their demands are met, it's like when school officials demand more money for schools. "If only we had enough money, we would have excellent schools," they say. Fair enough, the increasing per-capita spending on schools should eventually wipe out the disparity between our students and the students of other countries. Maybe someday we can catch up with Japan and South Korea and France. But wait, our private schools already have. That must be because they have such huge gobs of money to use, right? Well, no. They have only half the money, per student, that public schools have. But they manage to humiliate the public schools in terms of performance.

So does pouring in more money and increasing regulation (No Child Left Behind, anyone?) in a democracy, such as in public schools, get positive results? No, not ever. Does free competition, a profit motive, and a lack of coercion, such as in private schools, bring about positive results? Every time it's tried.

Oil spills, like any other accidents, happen. Are they contained well? In a free society, they're contained as well as possible under the circumstances. In a democracy, they're contained however the popular regime sees fit.

Laws? A democracy cares not for your laws. A democracy has a popular mandate, and the hell with your laws, your property, your rights, and your life. 

Report this comment
#38) On May 01, 2010 at 2:17 AM, FleaBagger (28.89) wrote:

"On the other hand, if there were no government, but a society of free people and true law, - Is that Democratically elected free people and true law - or Government by some other name? enforced by for-profit justice advocates, - For ten bucks more, I'll judge in your favor - a company that failed to take needed precautions like this would take a big hit when restitution is extracted by the advocates of the free people - Congress - whose shores and fishing waters were affected."

My stock broker works for me, and responds to my wishes. My credit card company less so. My phone company even less so. Worst of all is trying to deal with eBay when someone sent something other than what I paid for. But in any of those cases, I get attention and some kind of satisfaction, because they need money. They serve Republican, Democrat, and Independent customers alike, because they need their money.

My U.S. "representative" does not, and unless I can get scores of other people to agree with me and call as well, he won't ever hear my opinion. My senator does not heed his minority constituents at all, no matter what. Please indicate why you think that for-profit representation is inferior to for-vote representation.

It is the height of hypocrisy for an advocate of democracy to slanderously suggest that the justice advocates in an anarchy would be prone to bribery and corruption. Those who live in (or in devoish's case, worship) glass houses shouldn't throw stones. 

Report this comment
#39) On May 01, 2010 at 2:31 AM, whereaminow (25.00) wrote:

Summing up the argument

Government is good because it exists
Big government is good because it is big and can do stuff.
The first two lines only apply when my Party is in charge.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#40) On May 01, 2010 at 10:03 PM, devoish (98.06) wrote:

David,

Your summing up of my argument is inaccurate because you are blinded by your politics.

There are pronounced differences you cannot grasp no matter how any times I try to tell you. Let's rephrase what you said, into what I have said, and try to simplify for the politician in you.

Government is better than not having one - everywhere.

Small Gov'ts, as compared to those they are intended to Govern, are helpless and become captured - everywhere.

Every other form of government, except Democracy is already captured.

Democracys can avoid capture, but does not always, and is always at risk.

The tool used to capture a Democracy is small Gov't advocacy - see Fleabaggers post #37. Reagan - small, Bush - small, Clinton - small ( he was), Bush - small, Greenspan - small, Republicans - small, Conservatives - small, Libertarians - small. You have to be pretty big to capture a Gov't the size of the USA. XOM size, JPM size, GS size, Google size.

I am a registered Democrat because my vote counts more at that level. Ralph Nader and the Green Party is the closest afilliation I feel. I agree 100% with no party,  I believe scientists because they are neither politicians or corporate mouth pieces. Corporations who really have money to lose despite Davids suggestions that scientists are in that position. Global warming is real and man made.

I speak out in favor of Government because of all the anti- gov't posts written here. If a lack of Government was a good idea it would exist - before there was Government there was a lack of Government. In a Pride of lions there is a Government.

Someone will always try to take what you have and, as david says, sometimes Gov't becomes the tool. Except in a Democracy corporations become Gov't whether they call themselves Kings, Dictators or Goldman Sachs. In our Democracy small gov't advocates have put us at risk of losing our Democracy to whoever has the most money. Those advocates are ChrisGraley, Fleabagger, and Hopelesslylost among others. Gov't is not always a bad thing even though it can be a bad thing.

But in Davids unregulated free market economy no corporate entity could ever afford to keep the resources to respond to an accident sitting idly by unless all the corporate entitiys in their industry do also. And Davids answer of asking a corporate entity to leave after it is unable to clean up a spill of this size is pathetically weak and basically useless.

I believe he realises that and yet continues to promote such folly. In that estimation I could be wrong.

Seriously, without Government how do you protect your shoreline property from anything the size of a BP. You do it with elected Gov't bigger than BP. I cannot fire anyone at BP. We fired dozens of Republicans for abdicating the responsibilities of their posts to "free market" ideology.

As Flea points out, that is obvious to anyone. As Flea misses, regulations ignored or unenforced, are the same as not having them. As Flea misses, regulation discontinued or not begun, is the smaller Govt we have been promised.

What happened at this oil rig is an accident. I am sure BP had every financial incentive in the world to use the best technology available to protect its investment, except if there is a technology that is cost prohibitive. And yet the leak happened, so now what do you do, and who do you call? In this case the United States of America, Sate Governments, Coast Guard, National Guard, XOM, local fishermen and everyone you can find to help. If the help was free, you would have called last week.

Afterward you can follow Davids suggestion and organize into a big enough, but not call it a Government entity, that can send BP away. Unless you decide they have a property right to their well and that you should have no such authority.

I hope that helps.

Report this comment
#41) On May 03, 2010 at 1:45 PM, whereaminow (25.00) wrote:

That was quite possibly the dumbest rambling nonsense I have ever taken the time to read.  I take it back. You are crazy.

Corporations capture small governments and that's bad.  But only big corporations can capture big governments (totally untrue but whatever) and that is somehow good.

Small governments ignore regulations.  Big governments don't.  Except when they do.  That's good and better.  I don't know why regulations benefit us, except that we have them, except when they are ignored, and they are big.  Big is good.

Vote Democrat and support Nader. Even though Nader hates Democrats and they hate him.  Even though Nader called Obama an Uncle Tom (and doesn't even know what that means.)  I can support both even though Obama promotes the Cult of the State and Nader doesn't.  I don't even know the first thing about Nader but it sounds cool that I support him.  Nader opposes the wars, the Federal Reserve, and the increasing loss of civil liberties.  I don't.  I didn't even know that Nader said those things.  I had no idea that Nader and Ron Paul joined forces in 2008 to support third party candidates with likeminded views.  But I say I love Nader and hate Ron Paul.

Clearly I'm enlightened.  I know that Global Warming is real, even though I can't explain any of it except to link to publications and pro-Global Warming scientists that denialists don't believe.  I can't explain the Medival Warming Period.  I don't understand the first thing about modeling or programming and I have no idea how temperature sets are created or statistics can be smoothed.  I just know that those people are right because they are scientists.  There is no way a scientist could ever be wrong. 

I don't know how we got governments in the first place, but I'm sure it was a peaceful experiment.  I didn't know that the American Indians were slaughtered by a government, but I guess their only problem was that they had a lack of government.  Too bad for them.  Iran's problem is that it has a lack of democracy and I fully support slaughtering thousands of Iranians to make sure they don't suffer anymore.  Even though I say opposed the Iraqi slaughter.  It's different though because Obama wasn't in charge then.

Yes, I am a genius.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#42) On May 03, 2010 at 8:29 PM, devoish (98.06) wrote:

I would also point out that the Supreme Ruler doesn't have the Constitutional authority to assist a corporation in cleanup efforts.  Again, taxpayer money should not be used for such purposes.  Clean it up yourself or go to jail.  How hard is that?

David in Qatar

Rambling nonsense is not something you should be accusing others of.  

In the meantime, while you are busy jailing someone within a system of (Democratic?) laws agreed to by all you Libertarians, I will be happy to have The Federal gov't currently in place to direct whatever resources it has available to reduce the impact of this accident to as little as possible. And I will hope there is enough, but that does not seem to be the case.

 

Report this comment
#43) On May 03, 2010 at 10:57 PM, whereaminow (25.00) wrote:

There's never enough.  Of course, there'd be more if Obama actually brought the troops home.  We can't contain an oil spill but we can put hundreds of thousands of troops in Europe, Korea, and Japan doing welfare work (and all the machines and resources as well), instead of protecting the American coastline.

Oh, and those wars that the Democrats keep fighting and funding, year after year.

The Democrats have been in control of Congress for 4 years now.  When are you going to admit that there is no difference in foreign policy between Dems and Reps?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#44) On May 04, 2010 at 5:38 AM, devoish (98.06) wrote:

There is no difference in the tools available to Democrats or Republicans.

 

Report this comment
#45) On May 04, 2010 at 6:11 AM, whereaminow (25.00) wrote:

devoish,

Duh.

So if the policies are the same, how does voting for one or the other make a difference?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#46) On May 04, 2010 at 9:11 AM, worknfool (< 20) wrote:

Who'd a thunk it? For some strange reason I expected fools to exhibit perspectives that were a bit more insightful and in a less vitriolic fashion than the kind of childish tripe one witnesses on Facebook, et al. It appears that the puppet masters have already won.

Sun Tzu wrote about it over 2400 yrs. ago, slave owners pacticed it on this continent for well over a century, and rulers apparantly realized the efficacy of Divide and Conquer along the way. The bloviations and blathering to insult rather than inform is totally disengenuous, regardless of which "side" promulgates it, but it does serve a purposeful lesson. Our rulers have succeeded in keeping us distracted with one boogeyman after another while further dividing one against the other.

American slave owners managed a population that far outnumbered them for generations. Slaves during the Golden Age of Cotton were a valuable commodity and not something to be wantonly destroyed or incapacitated. While their methods were brutal they realized early on that beating people into submission wasn't a totally effective solution. Distrust and derision is. Pit young against old, male against female, dark against light, large against small, strong against weak, parent against child. Eventually even the groups within a group created opportunities for further fracturing of their subjects' potential for unity. Congratulations, it seems that many here are myopic enough to embrace this type of participation in their own manipulation. Nothing marks the efficiencey of an effort like its ability to convince its victims to sanction their own demise.

Look at the difficulty that the Black community experiences in our country even today as a result of this progrom's successes, the effects of failed social engineering experiments notwithstanding. The community itself has devolved into a series of self interested splinters that work to seperate themselves from each other at a time when we all need to be focusing on unity. The Whites, Tans, Yellows all suffer similarly, but the extremes of the effects are most readily observed among the Black community given the ethnicity of our current President and the percentage of his presumed race that still live in poverty.

 O.K., so we've learned not to learn. History isn't really important. Money doesn't influence even the most righteous among us, and human beings aren't capable of the mindless destruction of their own kind.  Reading the previous posts convinced me of nothing other than the fact that critical thinking is a dieing attribute. No one is ever persuaded to honestly change their mind about something unless they come that conclusion of their own accord. If you really want to change people's minds in a possitive way, rather than with the scare tactics and dishonest manipulation through fear that our rulers use, try just educating people. Give them the information and allow them the oportunity to form their own opinion and ask questions. 

 Presume for a moment that the "other side" is actually not an enemy. Attempt to grant that they are just as ardent in their belief as you are in yours, and that the final arbitor of right and wrong will ultimately be history, not who can out shout or insult the other. While arguing over  who is the greater evil and whether government is too big or not you end up missing the forest altogether...who controls those who control us?

 You may disagree with the premise, but at least consider it. Capitalism has proven to be one of mankinds greatest achieving concepts, while at the same time spawning some of its most aggregeous behavior. A totally free market may well solve its own problems, but we would never know since we've never actually ever experienced anything remotely close to that. Dogmatic diatribe manages nothing but to further reinforce the likelihood that we will never come together and experience a truly free anything.

Which splinter cell are you a part of? The Gay, Chistian, Republican, Latino, Global Warming crowd or the Nuke Iran, Buhdist, Free Market, Democratic, Anglo-Moorish-American crowd. Who cares? We have more special interest divisions between us now than ever and it's getting worse instead of better. This suits our rulers because it makes us easier to control. Whether you put any stock in things like the Trilateral Commission or the Creature from Jekyll Island or not, at least take a moment and consider it before you go off on another jihad against your neighbor. Like it or not, we're all in the same sinking ship, and the sooner that we all learn to focus on our true common enemies  the better.

The internet may well be our last hope. Sooner rather than later "they" will find a pretense for taking control of it as well.  Then all dissent can be effectively isolated and elliminated, leaving us as generational wards of a state that is controlled by the few. We're not too far from just turning our whole paycheck over to Uncle Charlie and asking for an allowance in return. Totalitarianism has already been weighed, measured and found wanting. Let's not try it again.

Stock pickers who can't indentify a trend? Graph this. How about our debt vs. percentage of taxes dedicated to debt service? We're not even makin' a dent in principle anymore, just payin' the vig. Where's the rest gonna come from...savings on record keeping? Who's ever gonna vote out supporters of Really Big Government when half of the country is working for them?

 Want to know what that'll be like? Read We the Living, and Atlas Shrugged. You don't have to like her style or philosophy to appreciate the authors uncanny insight. Check out sites like Open Congress' Money Trail, look at the list of contributors and what they pay for the congressmen that they own. Then look at the votes that the whores cast to repay their masters. Do you think any of them really care what we want or need? Only as far as they have to go to keep us from dragging them into the street and lopping off their heads.

Before you get goin' again look at who owns the Federal Reserve, and the banks, and the media. Well of course you can only guess at who owns the Fed, but it sure ain't us, and it sure ain't some altruistic group of freedom lovers. Just for a moment suspend the inculcated notion that we have a need to inject our influence into every corner of the globe. Do you honestly believe that our rulers care one wit about anybody's welfare in the Third World? If so what's up with the Sudan and where was everybody when Rowanda was being purged? We're not talking about World War's here, we're talkin' Monroe Doctrine Andrew Jackson Gone Wild Remember the Maine Empire Building baloney...for who? Do you wake up in a cold sweat because women in a stone aged culture on the other side of the world have to wear a veil? Do you think that by sending our children there to be killed and maimed that we are serving some greater good? And if so whose...some mythic god's? And if some one's God, then which god. How quickly can you divide a room of people with an argument over who has the stronger ethereal dillusions. Do you honestly believe that anybody in the MiddleEast would give a rat's arse about us if we weren't constantly invading or bombing or screwing around with their sovereignty?  How do you think we'd react to them coming over here with a military sledgehammer and rearranging our social fabric to suit them? Hell our ancestors didn't even want to pay a tax on tea to the government that protected them from pirates and indians.

Finally there's the focus on our latest catastrophe. First let's not forget, the government does not attract the best from amongst us. In general that is where the average and below went because they couldn't or wouldn't compete. Now that there's enough of them to take control of their own destiny they take very good care of themselves...first. While the rest of the world's learning to do more with less they continue getting raises to a point where their average remuneration is more than double the national average. If they fail to meet a deadline or produce a viable result the market, us, has no immediate recourse. How can we avoid them and where is the incentive for them to do anything better than just screw up. They get compensated the same regardless.

Katrina wasn't the first and it won't be the last time that our gubmint will fail on an epic scale in responding to a disaster. Watch now as BP continues dumping over a third of the world's supply of oil dispersent into the Gulf. You'd think that the brain trust in Washington would have taken a look into those old reliable unintended consequences. In this case that would include the fact that while the chemical in use does disperse the oil, it also creates a toxic by-product that will kill aquatic life. Gee, imagine that...no silver bullet. But the black goo on the pelicans and the beaches is the only part that'll be on the nightly news or internet so that's where the emphasis must be...public relations damage control. As this unfolds, watch the money flow into political coffers from the Gulf States to D.C., and as it flows, so will the political will to punish diminish. In the end the people and fisheries of the Gulf will be the big loosers left holding the bag. Fisheries do not regenerate like corporate profits or election campaign contributions. They take years and a serious will...so you can pretty much forget about that as well. 

It will be mishandled on a massive scale...and we will get stuck with the bill somehow (anybody see higher energy prices even faster than normally expected)? Might be a good time to start rolling dice in the commodities markets.

 Wake up folks! It's us against them, and them ain't your neighbor. I live near D.C. and trust me when I tell you that they are a unique and shameless lot that live life in a manner that would make you throw up in your mouth. Between them and the Masters of the Universe we've got a lot to do, but it starts with gettin' together on just who the real enemy of the people and our prosperity is.

Report this comment
#47) On May 04, 2010 at 7:10 PM, devoish (98.06) wrote:

 There is no difference in the tools available to Democrats or Republicans.

 Duh.

So if the policies are the same, how does voting for one or the other make a difference?

David in Qatar

David in Qatar - truly gifted at reading what you want to hear.

Report this comment
#48) On May 04, 2010 at 7:16 PM, devoish (98.06) wrote:

Worknfool,

That is along rant about not dividing into "us vs. them" but your "them" seems to be elected Gov't.

Report this comment
#49) On May 04, 2010 at 7:34 PM, ragedmaximus (< 20) wrote:

govt needs to change with the times like ALL the OTHER DOWNSIZING we are EXPERIENCING!  firing teachers and police and firefighters and taxing retirement is not the answer.downsizing overpaid bloated govt is a great start.I'm not saying no govt,just cuts even with the average unemployment like 15-20% would be a start.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement