BP's oil spill - should Statism come to the rescue?

Permabear · 26-05-2010 10:51am

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet · 26-05-2010 10:56am

ei.sdraob wrote: »

You didn't answer my question

Your question of how long it would take the US government to stop the leak?
I don't know, my crystal ball doesn't answer.

I suggest the answer is directly proportional to how many resources the government would throw at the problem + the level of urgency the task is assigned.

Statism is quite good at thinking on the feet as the landscape changes.

ei.sdraob · 26-05-2010 10:58am

BluePlanet wrote: »

... Statism is quite good at thinking on the feet as the landscape changes.

Fixed Your Post

Laminations · 26-05-2010 11:00am

ei.sdraob wrote: »

externalities yes

Nobel Prize-winner Ronald Coase further undermined interventionist welfare analysis with the publication of his paper, "The Problem of Social Cost," in 1960. Coase demonstrated that as long as property rights are clearly defined and transaction costs are low, the individuals involved in these situations can always negotiate a solution that internalizes any externality.

Consider the case of river pollution from the foozle factory. If the people downriver from the factory have a property right in the river, the factory will have to negotiate with them in order to legally discharge waste through their property. We can't say what solution the participants might arrive at-the factory might shut down, the people downriver might be paid to move, or the factory might install pollution control devices or simply compensate those affected for suffering the pollution. What we can say is that, within a system of voluntary exchange, each party has demonstrated that it prefers the solution arrived at to the situation that existed before their negotiations.

Furthermore, we should note that negotiating between the parties affected allows them to use the "particular circumstances of time and place," with which they alone are familiar, to arrive at a solution. The factory owner may be aware of an alternate foozle material that does not pollute the river, or the people downriver might know that the river is stinky anyway and that it's best to move. Regulators generally cannot take such specific knowledge into account in their drafting of edicts.

Case studies have illustrated the resourcefulness of voluntary exchange in accounting for potential externalities. An oft-used example of a positive externality in economics is in the production of fruit trees and beekeeping. The growers of fruit trees provide a benefit to beekeepers: flowers. And beekeepers provide a benefit to the growers: pollination.

The standard analysis, however, contended that neither party had an incentive to take account of the benefit to the other. Thus, there would be "too few" orchards and beekeepers. Economist Steven Cheung has studied these markets, however, and has found that the parties involved had accounted for the externalities quite well, contracting with each other to raise production to optimal levels.

How did this libertarian twaddle pass without scrutiny? How does one compartmentalise and privatise the air or oceans? Even the river example is lame. And voluntary exchange leaves things wide open for abuse of power. Whether that power leads to the buying off of a poorer downstream community to pollute their river or the sexual harrassment of a worker as they keep their job, libertarianism leaves the powerless at the mercy and charity of the powerful. It's not surprising that the libertarians on here are what I'd consider powerful -well educated and well to do. You can't have truly voluntary exchange when the parties involved are terribly unequal - inequity of needs, inequity of resources, inequity of choice and opportunity.

And the beekeeper/orchard example given that supposedly shows this all works fine and dandy is an ideal situation, where both parties benefit in the same direction. How would voluntary exchange work between a locust factory and an orchard, especially in the case where the factory is far wealthier than the apple grower. How d'ya like them apples?

ei.sdraob · 26-05-2010 11:02am

BluePlanet wrote: »

Your question of how long it would take the US government to stop the leak?
I don't know, my crystal ball doesn't answer.

If they don't have a plan and/or expertise required then how the hell can they help? and not make the situation worse??

BP admitted they made a booboo and are cleaning it up (even tho they dont have to if they followed the law to the letter)

having oil spilling out is not exactly good for business or the image of the company

Laminations · 26-05-2010 11:05am

And with regard to this thread, there should be some government oversight of the clean up and state resources should be offered and at the ready if needed (with BP getting the bill, not taxpayers) but BP have the expertise and should be left to clean up it's own mess, all the while being 'encouraged' to do so swiftly but comprehensively by the US government and international community

Eliot Rosewater · 26-05-2010 11:09am

BluePlanet wrote: »

Your question of how long it would take the US government to stop the leak?
I don't know, my crystal ball doesn't answer.

One would presume that British Petroleum, a 100 year old oil company, would be in a better position to deal with an underwater drilling problem than the United States government.

What do you think the US government is going to do: shoot Apollo 13 into the sea and hope that it manages to plug the leak?

In your hasty bid to undermine libertarianism you've made the large mistake of comparing this kind of disaster to a one, like a hurricane, where raw manpower is the primary necessity. Oil drilling is a specialized field, and the solutions to this engineering problem are thus specialized too.

BluePlanet · 26-05-2010 11:15am

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

One would presume that British Petroleum, a 100 year old oil company, would be in a better position to deal with an underwater drilling problem than the United States government.

What do you think the US government is going to do: shoot Apollo 13 into the sea and hope that it manages to plug the leak?

In your hasty bid to undermine libertarianism you've made the large mistake of comparing this kind of disaster to a one, like a hurricane, where raw manpower is the primary necessity. Oil drilling is a specialized field, and the solutions to this engineering problem are thus specialized too.

But the problem is not limited to oil drilling.
Cleanup requires massive manpower, a resource the State has in abundance.
Better safety checks and regulation to mitigate against such disasters in future are also within the State's realm.

I'd also like to add, that the State has access to far more specialised resources - particularly at NASA and the Jet Propulsion Labratory, than BP has.

ei.sdraob · 26-05-2010 11:23am

BluePlanet wrote: »

But the problem is not limited to oil drilling.
Cleanup requires massive manpower, a resource the State has in abundance.
Better safety checks and regulation to mitigate against such disasters in future are also within the State's realm.

I'd also like to add, that the State has access to far more specialised resources - particularly at NASA and the Jet Propulsion Labratory, than BP has.

various US agencies are involved and are sending the bill to BP

how would more regulation help? the rig had equipment to prevent this from happening
but the blowback system failed to work in this case
hence why its called an accident
you could place a US Govt apparatchic/overseer on every oil rig but how would that stop mechanical failure?

of course the state can ban offshore drilling and instead go and takeover oilfields in the middle east (oh wait) or just strange the economy with excessive oil taxes (like ireland)

BluePlanet · 26-05-2010 11:28am

ei.sdraob wrote: »

various US agencies are involved and are sending the bill to BP

how would more regulation help? the rig had equipment to prevent this from happening
but the blowback system failed to work in this case
hence why its called an accident
you could place a US Govt apparatchic/overseer on every oil rig but how would that stop mechanical failure?

of course the state can ban offshore drilling and instead go and takeover oilfields in the middle east (oh wait) or just strange the economy with excessive oil taxes (like ireland)

You are pre-judging the cause.
The "blowback system" is only 1 line of defense.
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/safety_fluid_was_removed_befor.html

ei.sdraob · 26-05-2010 11:35am

BluePlanet wrote: »

You are pre-judging the cause.
The "blowback system" is only 1 line of defense.
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/safety_fluid_was_removed_befor.html

thanks for the link, seems like an ongoing investigation/lawsuit (interesting how the cement failed first no?

)
if the safety systems were deliberately compromised then they will "get it" in court of law

in meantime this hole still needs to be plugged, and it has to be BP that will do it

P. Breathnach · 26-05-2010 11:48am

Laminations wrote: »

How did this libertarian twaddle pass without scrutiny? ...

In part because I hadn't got around to it yet.

Libertarians and their ilk make some assumptions that do not sit well with ordinary human experience, one of them being that persons (individuals and corporations) have equal rights and equal ability to vindicate those rights.

As an individual, I am fairly well able to assert my rights. That is because I am fairly well educated, have a range of life experience, and could afford the cost of some litigation if I needed to. And because I have that ability, I have never had to resort to the courts.

If the well from which I draw my water were polluted by the actions of a local farmer, I would be able to solve that problem. If, however, my water source were polluted by a large factory whose owners were wealthy and ruthless, I am far less sure that I, acting on my own, could bring about a remedy.

To address the original question in this thread. It can be argued that the state is ultimately dealing with the oil spill by imposing on BP a requirement that they deal with the mess they have caused. I haven't researched the matter, but I think it is a fair conjecture that the amount an oil company will act so as to protect the environment is determined by the laws of the state where it is operating: if they can get away with causing an ecological disaster, they will do so.

ei.sdraob · 26-05-2010 12:02pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In part because I hadn't got around to it yet.

Libertarians and their ilk make some assumptions that do not sit well with ordinary human experience, one of them being that persons (individuals and corporations) have equal rights and equal ability to vindicate those rights.

As an individual, I am fairly well able to assert my rights. That is because I am fairly well educated, have a range of life experience, and could afford the cost of some litigation if I needed to. And because I have that ability, I have never had to resort to the courts.

If the well from which I draw my water were polluted by the actions of a local farmer, I would be able to solve that problem. If, however, my water source were polluted by a large factory whose owners were wealthy and ruthless, I am far less sure that I, acting on my own, could bring about a remedy.

To address the original question in this thread. It can be argued that the state is ultimately dealing with the oil spill by imposing on BP a requirement that they deal with the mess they have caused. I haven't researched the matter, but I think it is a fair conjecture that the amount an oil company will act so as to protect the environment is determined by the laws of the state where it is operating: if they can get away with causing an ecological disaster, they will do so.

could you solve the problem if instead of a company a state was engaging in polluting?

lets say Sellafield across the Irish sea

or China across the globe

your quick to point out the private companies, but ignoring the state of China which is now the worlds biggest polluter and its tightly controlled industry

Valmont · 26-05-2010 12:13pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

but I think it is a fair conjecture that the amount an oil company will act so as to protect the environment is determined by the laws of the state where it is operating: if they can get away with causing an ecological disaster, they will do so.

It's a shame you have such a cynical view. Why do you proclaim to know that BP value profit at the exclusion of everything else? They have pledged to clean this mess up and to reimburse those affected by it. You don't actually know that they are doing this because of regulations, no matter how much you wish it were the case.

Is it all possible that they know their reputation will be in tatters if they don't deal with this? You presume that if the government were non-existent in this case that BP could go on as they did before no problem but that is very myopic. If you found oil under your well, who would you hire to extract it for you? The company with the sterling safety record or the one who caused a major disaster and didn't bother cleaning it up? Face it, regardless of the government, it is in BP's interests to clean this mess up quickly and comprehensively, lest their future interests are damaged any more than they already are.

Permabear · 26-05-2010 12:15pm

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet · 26-05-2010 12:18pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

your quick to point out the private companies, but ignoring the state of China which is now the worlds biggest polluter and its tightly controlled industry

Did you forget that China has a massive population?
USA is still the top polluter per capita.

ei.sdraob · 26-05-2010 12:19pm

Valmont wrote: »

It's a shame you have such a cynical view. Why do you proclaim to know that BP value profit at the exclusion of everything else? They have pledged to clean this mess up and to reimburse those affected by it. You don't actually know that they are doing this because of regulations, no matter how much you wish it were the case.

Is it all possible that they know their reputation will be in tatters if they don't deal with this? You presume that if the government were non-existent in this case that BP could go on as they did before no problem but that is very myopic. If you found oil under your well, who would you hire to extract it for you? The company with the sterling safety record or the one who caused a major disaster and didn't bother cleaning it up? Face it, regardless of the government, it is in BP's interests to clean this mess up quickly and comprehensively, lest their future interests are damaged any more than they already are.

it is in BPs interest to clean this up quickly, the government stepping in now with no credible plan as per OPs suggestion will make the matter worse

BP are going well above what regulations/law require of them
they committed themselves in public to cleaning up this mess

if they followed the law to the letter (as posted earlier in thread) they would only have to clean-up up to 75 million, instead they put themselves on the hook for the whole 12 billion + of the clean-up, and have also already lost more than that in share value

BluePlanet · 26-05-2010 12:23pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

it is in BPs interest to clean this up quickly, the government stepping in now with no credible plan as per OPs suggestion will make the matter worse

BP are going well above what regulations/law require of them
they committed themselves in public to cleaning up this mess

if they followed the law to the letter (as posted earlier in thread) they would only have to clean-up up to 75 million, instead they put themselves on the hook for the whole 12 billion + of the clean-up, and have also already lost more than that in share value

Wrong, they have to pay for clean up in full.
The law only caps the subsequent liability damages to 75 million.

BluePlanet · 26-05-2010 12:25pm

One thing this thread has done, it's brought into the light those posters that are blanket supporters of BP and corporate oil, vs those against.

ei.sdraob · 26-05-2010 12:31pm

BluePlanet wrote: »

One thing this thread has done, it's brought into the light those posters that are blanket supporters of BP and corporate oil, vs those against.

Wrong it brought out people who want BP to be held responsible and clean-up own mess, without getting the inefficient state involved and making matters worse

the alternative to corporate oil is state controlled oil, states which often dont care about the environment and want to line own pockets and gain more power

Permabear · 26-05-2010 12:32pm

This post has been deleted.

SlabMurphy · 26-05-2010 12:35pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I hear the Russians offered to blow up a small nuke to seal the well as they have done on several occasions in the past

for a small fee of course...

Well if it works and the Ruskies stop the leak - the Libertarian's will be pronouncing the superiority of private enterprise......if it doesn't work the Libertarian's will be declaring it's the fault of the state as they didn't properly research if the Russian's had the ability to live up to thier promises

BluePlanet · 26-05-2010 12:36pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Is that a Libertarian arguing against particular industries from making political charity donations?

Macha · 26-05-2010 12:50pm

BluePlanet wrote: »

Did you forget that China has a massive population?
USA is still the top polluter per capita.

I'd just be careful of distinguishing between types of pollution.

In terms of per capita greenhouse gas emissions, the US, Kuwait, UAE, Australia, Canada and our good selves are far ahead of China.

P. Breathnach · 26-05-2010 1:00pm

Valmont wrote: »

It's a shame you have such a cynical view. Why do you proclaim to know that BP value profit at the exclusion of everything else? They have pledged to clean this mess up and to reimburse those affected by it. You don't actually know that they are doing this because of regulations, no matter how much you wish it were the case.

When I describe something as a conjecture, I am making it clear that I don't actually know. When I describe something as a fair conjecture, it means that I don't actually know, but think I have things about right. So I don't "proclaim to know".

You, on the other hand, suggest that you know what my wishes are.

Is it all possible that they know their reputation will be in tatters if they don't deal with this? You presume that if the government were non-existent in this case that BP could go on as they did before no problem but that is very myopic. If you found oil under your well, who would you hire to extract it for you? The company with the sterling safety record or the one who caused a major disaster and didn't bother cleaning it up? Face it, regardless of the government, it is in BP's interests to clean this mess up quickly and comprehensively, lest their future interests are damaged any more than they already are.

I know it's not BP, but the story of Shell and the Ogoni people in the Niger Delta illustrates my general point that the behaviour of oil companies can vary, depending on the legal framework in which they operate.

The primary purpose of most corporations is to benefit their investors. To that end, they are fulfilling their mission if they minimise their spending on the environment to what they can get away with. Governments, more than the marketplace, determine what they can get away with.

Laminations · 26-05-2010 1:03pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes because China and Russia are shining examples of the type of good responsible and accountable governance that detractors of the libertarian faith are advocating :rolleyes:

you again try to rig the debate so you are arguing with extreme statism despite that position not being occupied by your opponents.

Permabear · 26-05-2010 1:03pm

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob · 26-05-2010 1:07pm

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Well if it works and the Ruskies stop the leak - the Libertarian's will be pronouncing the superiority of private enterprise......if it doesn't work the Libertarian's will be declaring it's the fault of the state as they didn't properly research if the Russian's had the ability to live up to thier promises

oh that was a joke

whats more interesting is that they used them on 5 oil leak occasions :eek:

not that the russians are the beacons of environmentalism, checkout their handywork here that's been burning for decades

Permabear · 26-05-2010 1:14pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 26-05-2010 1:17pm

This post has been deleted.

Macha · 26-05-2010 1:31pm

The Blacksmith Institute ranked the following as the top 10 polluted sites in the world in 2007:
-Sumgayit, Azerbaijan
-Linfen, China
-Tianying, China
-Sukinda, India
-Vapi, India
-La Oroya, Peru
-Dzerzhinsk, Russia
-Norilsk, Russia
-Chernobyl, Ukraine
-Kabwe, Zambia

What do these environmental disasters all have in common? A lack of sufficient environmental regulation. Yes, some were carried out by governments themselves but that in itself is just another form of a lack of sufficient environmental regulation.

I know of very few companies that have self-regulated to higher standards than those required by law.

BluePlanet · 26-05-2010 1:35pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

not that the russians are the beacons of environmentalism, checkout their handywork here that's been burning for decades

Strange, the video claim it's Darvaz, Turkmenistan, while your link claims it's Uzbekistan and Wikipedia puts Darvaz in Tajikistan and partly in Afghanistan.

Would the real Darvaz please Stand Up?

ei.sdraob · 26-05-2010 1:37pm

taconnol wrote: »

The Blacksmith Institute ranked the following as the top 10 polluted sites in the world in 2007:
-Sumgayit, Azerbaijan
-Linfen, China
-Tianying, China
-Sukinda, India
-Vapi, India
-La Oroya, Peru
-Dzerzhinsk, Russia
-Norilsk, Russia
-Chernobyl, Ukraine
-Kabwe, Zambia

What do these environmental disasters all have in common? A lack of sufficient environmental regulation. Yes, some were carried out by governments themselves but that in itself is just another form of a lack of sufficient environmental regulation.

I know of very few companies that have self-regulated to higher standards than those required by law.

You just dug yourself a "burning" hole

what they all have in common is the highly authoritarian state being responsible for them

take Chernobyl, unlike all of the privately run nuclear stations in the west, it didnt have a containment building, and of course it was mainly designed to produce plutonium for weapons not power, and i dont know any privately owned plant that would think its a great idea to perform stress tests with Safety's off, you know for the laugh :rolleyes:

As has been pointed out already in this thread, BP are taking responsibility for their mess and going above and beyond what the law requires of them

as per thread title, why should this problem be "socialized" onto the state and its people?

Macha · 26-05-2010 1:39pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

You just dug yourself a "burning" hole

what they all have in common is the highly authoritarian state being responsible for them (btw i've been to one of the places on that list )

I'm not proposing a highly authoritarian state so I don't feel the need to defend them. As I pointed out in my post, the common point between them is not how highly or non-highly authoritarian they are, but rather a lack of environmental regulation.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

As has been pointed out already in this thread, BP are taking responsibility for their mess and going above and beyond what the law requires of them

And that is as a result of negative PR, nothing else.

ei.sdraob · 26-05-2010 1:42pm

taconnol wrote: »

And that is as a result of negative PR, nothing else.

At least companies care about PR and shareholders opinions, many states don't

Macha · 26-05-2010 1:43pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

At least companies care about PR and shareholders opinions, many states don't

It's not exactly a solid argument that environmental regulation should be replaced with PR concerns

ei.sdraob · 26-05-2010 1:47pm

taconnol wrote: »

It's not exactly a solid argument that environmental regulation should be replaced with PR concerns

its a bit more than a PR concern for BP
that oil flowing into the sea is a missed opportunity
its in their interest to stop this for many reasons beside PR

as has been pointed out in the thread at least they have a plan and the know how, the US govt has neither

sure go ahead hand the problem over to the US government see how the environment gets on then :rolleyes:

Knarr · 26-05-2010 1:52pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

as per thread title, why should this problem be "socialized" onto the state and its people?

It already has been socialised. The US army and coastguard are involved.

Thats excluding the extarnalities people must face from the fumes from the burnoff and environmental damage.

Unfortunately the market cannot account for these 'socialised' problems. Thats why the state should enforce costs on the company.

Knarr · 26-05-2010 1:54pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

sure go ahead hand the problem over to the US government see how the environment gets on then :rolleyes:

It shouldnt have been left in private hands in the first place. The Us government should have had the facilities for disasters like this.

Yes, that means tax.

Macha · 26-05-2010 2:00pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

its a bit more than a PR concern for BP
that oil flowing into the sea is a missed opportunity
its in their interest to stop this for many reasons beside PR

To be honest, PR and losing a precious commodity are at the top of their list.

The head of BP revealed his total ignorance by calling it a "drop in the ocean". He really isn't bothered by the environmental impact any further than this in turn impacts on PR and company profits.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

as has been pointed out in the thread at least they have a plan and the know how, the US govt has neither

I'm not sure they know how to, nor I am so sure the US Govt can either. The technology for deep-sea oil drilling as advanced far enough to allow these sorts of projects to go ahead but the corresponding disaster mitigation & risk analysis hasn't. That was where the US govt failed - but that isn't an argument for the US govt removing themselves from the issue, it's an argument for the US govt to ensure proper risk analyses of similar projects in future.

BluePlanet · 26-05-2010 2:01pm

Or maybe, the US should have had Regulations that made this impossible.
For example in that link i provided earlier, they mention additional failsafe's that Canada, Norway, Brazil and other countries mandate that the US don't.

Also, the US could require that a company submit and review a DeepWater Drilling Emergency Plan before work commences.

jank · 26-05-2010 2:14pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

need I remind you that these "statists" are not even capable of putting a man in orbit anymore with the shuttle retiring never mind the moon

oh really? :rolleyes:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7106714.ece

fontanalis · 26-05-2010 2:19pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

If the government steps in now, that means BP have to step aside

and that will mean more wasted time and more pollution

the question you should be asking is: how long would it take the US government to stop the leak?

I don't think they can, either can BP which shows how good the market is at preventing these disasters? Are BP (the whole area of prevention and fixing the mess does fall under their remit) able to fix any future problems, are other companies able to do? At least oilc ompanies should be up front about their capabilities.

fontanalis · 26-05-2010 2:24pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Wrong it brought out people who want BP to be held responsible and clean-up own mess, without getting the inefficient state involved and making matters worse

The only reason people are talking about the US government stepping in is that BP can't handle it, it's been what 4 weeks or so and the behemoth of buisness can't fix it. I know some of this doesn't tie in with L Rand Hubbard philosophies but there you go.
It's not about who should at this stage but who can, both BP and the US government have to step up and be honest about what their capabilities and limitations are.

Permabear · 26-05-2010 3:08pm

This post has been deleted.

fontanalis · 26-05-2010 3:33pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I wish them luck also, I don't care who does it as long as it's done and quickly. Like I said I doubt the US government can fix it either and if BP (or the other compnay that done the drilling) can't fix it then I think it raises questions about their other operations
Why has the latest bumper sticker slogan "statism" have to be dragged into debates now?

Macha · 26-05-2010 3:41pm

fontanalis wrote: »

Why has the latest bumper sticker slogan "statism" have to be dragged into debates now?

It's the successor to "socialism".

ei.sdraob · 26-05-2010 3:59pm

taconnol wrote: »

It's the successor to "socialism".

one requires the other in order to control the people

P. Breathnach · 26-05-2010 4:23pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

one requires the other in order to control the people

In a state with any degree of freedom (and that includes most states) people are controlled only to the extent that they consent to it. The trick is to win their consent, either by being straightforward or by being somewhat deceptive.

Deceptive methods include propagandists' tricks like labelling things in order to attack them, such as calling all government action statism, and representing statism as a bad thing. It avoids the problem of having to consider government actions singly, and perhaps finding that some are good, others are bad, and most lie somewhere in between.

Statism is unlike socialism or capitalism in that it is not a real ideology. It is simply the implementation at government level of the political choices made by the people, or at least with their consent. The only people who might see statism as an ideology are those whose own ideology is fundamentally opposed to the very idea of government. Personally, I regard such people as being on the lunatic fringe.

fontanalis · 26-05-2010 4:36pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

one requires the other in order to control the people

I think Glen Beck stole your chalk board

BP's oil spill - should Statism come to the rescue?

Comments