Not including litigation, which in itself is not including much of the actual impact because most people impacted will not have the resources to sue.
My point is, they should pay all the cost. Which means, with certainty, people who use their products will pay the cost. Which means, people who use less of the product will not be forced to pay the costs of those who use more. It also hopefully means they won't have the cash to pay the huge bonuses to corporate high muckity-mucks. But that's not likely.
Thanks for the support, it gets fucking tiring arguing with likes of ArcherB, Shakrai, and the usual cast of corporate apologists all by myself. I agree completely with your ideas. I think you may be confused on that point... Maybe my presentation of my ideas was not so clear?
Lay back and take it, is that your answer? Might as well enjoy it because you can't stop it? Heck, as long as rape is the way of the world, I might as well be the one doing the raping, right?
You think that's the only medical cost of this spill? Seriously? Oil is toxic, you know. People swim in the ocean, breath the smoke from the fires, people continents away will be getting cancers they never would have without this spill, and we don't, we can't know what the total costs of this will be.
I'm not saying this is abstract or hard to figure out. I'm saying, BPs liability is capped at $75 million, and the government's fund holds $1.5 billion, and the overall costs will be far greater than that, which means WE will be paying the costs while BP executives continue to take home multi-million dollar bonuses.
"Society" does not come with an environmental cost. We don't have a planned economy, we have a free market, therefore, it is private industry that comes with the cost. Private industry profits, but society pays the cost. Shouldn't, oh I don't know, their profits be less, to cover the costs? Why should WE be the ones to pay the costs while the bastards making the decisions are taking home tens of millions in bonuses? Maybe THEY should pay the costs, they made the decisions.
So, you are NOT saying the free market will fix this? Cool! We're in agreement then. The free market WILL NOT FIX THIS. Glad we agree that the free market will not magically fix everything.
You were NOT implying that BP will shoulder the cost of the cleanup? You are saying, while BP execs take home millions in bonuses and BP stock holders continue to profit, SOCIETY will pay for the cleanup. Glad we agree here, too.
Sorry for saying you were implying things you weren't. I'm glad that we agree that under our version of the free market, private industry takes the profits while society pays the bills. I'm sure you are just as outraged by this unfairness as I am, and you will want to force everyone to pay their own costs rather than making us pay for them. I'm glad that you, too, are tired of the rich stealing from us, and I'm sure that you will want to do as I do and speak out about this unfairness.
Good point, let's instead use "oil" as an example. I pump oil on my property and dump the toxic waste from the process into a stream which runs through both our properties. You are a farmer who irrigates with that stream.
From there, the rest of the analogy pretty much runs the same way. And we come to the same conclusion: those profiting from an activity should pay the real costs to society and not externalize their costs while privatizing the profits. Does that make sense?
No, we don't pay through the cost of oil, because the oil companies have externalized their true costs. Therefore, the current cost of gas does not represent the true cost of producing and using it. We socialize the costs while privatizing the profits.
We do not make our best leaps forward due to tragedy and war. Gunpowder was invented by the Chinese while looking for an elixer of immortality. Democracy was not invented by a general, or due to a tragedy. Neither was calculus. Nor astronomy. Nor the printing press. I mean, come on, what WAS invented due to war or tragedy, that is actually useful?
You present a false dichotomy: accept the status quo, or go back to living in caves. Do you realize how silly that sounds? We have more options than that, you know.
It sounds like you are saying, "Wait until a bunch of people get sick, then make society shoulder the cost while private industry takes all the profit." You'll pardon me if I don't quite think that's fair.
How do you know what the actual damages are? You don't. What are the damages to the fisheries? Tourism? What are the medical costs? You don't know, and you don't seem to care.
BP's liabilities are capped at $75 million because they pay a tax of 8 cents per $90 barrel of crude that goes into a fund that has a whopping $1.5 billion in it. I wish I had the money to buy the laws I want.
BP, liquidate? I hardly think the powers that be would allow that to happen. You do know that we don't actually have a free market, right?
Under the law that established the reserve, called the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, the operators of the offshore rig face no more than $75 million in liability for the damages that might be claimed by individuals, companies or the government.
The fund was set up by Congress in 1986 but not financed until after the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska in 1989. In exchange for the limits on liability, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 imposed a tax on oil companies, currently 8 cents for every barrel they produce in this country or import.
Wow, cool. Can I get a limit on my liabilities by paying slightly more in taxes (eight cents per $90 barrel), so I can run around acting irresponsibly without having to pay for it? Wait, I'm not allowed to do that unless I'm a big corporation who can pay for lobbyists and buy the laws I like? Well that's hardly fair.
Okay, how about this: I build a sewer that leaks onto your property accidentally. And I say, "eh, screw you, I'm not paying for it. My liability is capped by the government, YOU pay for it."
You present a false dichotomy, claiming we either have to pay for these kinds of spills, or use power plants that run on unicorn horns. Sunshine and wind, obviously, are real things and plants CAN run on those. But the point is, it is not an either/or situation.
I'm not saying, "don't drill." I'm saying, make companies pay for their mistakes. Not the taxpayer.
Do you even know what the Fairness Doctrine is? Based on your reply, I don't think you have any clue what it really is or does. This is why we have the Internet, people, you can look things up so you don't sound like an idiot saying something is actually something entirely different.
Shakrai was implying that the free market will take care of things and BP will shoulder the entire cost of the cleanup. He was also making a false dichotomy by claiming that we either pay the cost of having spills, or have no energy, which is bullshit.
That is the cost that BP will pay, yes. The cost of cleanup does not cover the entire externality imposed on us. Do you suppose the cleanup will be perfect? Do you suppose all the damage done will be undone? Do you suppose pigs can fly?
We are paying for the majority of the impact, which is far more than just mopping up the oil, not BP. As others have already raised the issues with your pathetic defense of Big Business that I was going to raise, I will let you respond to them instead. I look forward to reading your replies to Mindcontrolled and Remus.
You do realize that continually defending the owning class will not convince them to let you into their club, don't you? You are their useful idiot, defending the indefensible so they don't even have to sully themselves debating the hoi polloi. And you will be paid for your effort, with their mocking laughter.
Do you know what trapping is? Separations? I don't think you do. The thing is, a client sees a file on their computer in RGB, on their monitor, under their lights. A professional firm will have calibrated monitors in a lighting booth that provides calibrated light. And they will have calibrations for the printing process they will be using. Dot gain, bleed, registration, there are a LOT of things going on in pre-press. We're talking professional publication here, not printing up a poster at your local reprographics firm.
However, to the guy you replied to: you wouldn't freaking KNOW if someone gave you a GIMP file, a.tiff is a.tiff. And plenty of people DO send in RGB files. Not everyone is obsessive about color matching, especially on short run and one off jobs. And most people won't be creating the whole layout in PS anyway, they will be using, oh I don't know, a page layout program? And THAT is what usually does the color conversions and separations, right? You can edit a pic in GIMP and do the rest of your pre-flight in the page layout program you normally use, right?
Who pays for the mistakes? Who pays for the environmental impact? If BP were forced to shoulder the entire cost of this mistake, they would go bankrupt. And so, as usual, it is the rest of us who will have to pay. Socialism for the rich, paid for by the poor.
If you and I lived next to each other, and I ran a pipe from my toilet into your yard, you would be pretty pissed off, wouldn't you? You'd probably demand I stop shitting in your yard. And I would say, "Human civilization can not exist without environmental impact, shit happens, get over your knee jerk reaction and get used to it, hippie."
Who? I've never seen anyone on the left call for silencing anyone. The hate crime laws, now, as implemented, how are they censorship? You DO know that nothing in the laws criminalizes hate speech, right? They only provide higher penalties for actual violent crimes.
My messiah? Obama is FAR too conservative for me. I'm not denying there are big, big problems with the Dems. But they are still the lesser of the two evils.
Okay, you included Sanders and Kucinich in your list, I retract my previous 'disenchanted Republican' statement. But that was previous spending. Wall Street has fallen out of love with the Democrats, who haven't done what they wanted, and is now concentrating on funding the Republicans. Unfortunately, the Republicans seem to be spending all their campaign funds on wild parties with lesbian bondage strippers.
I just use password strength answer and I keep a file of them. I had a great conversation with an online bank. Security had detected a pattern that was unusual and called me. They asked me what high school I went to. I told them UMc9vdX0QLOH (not really, but you get the idea.)
The guy was flabbergasted.
I told him that although I appreciated their security, I didn't trust them, say, to not sell a used laptop on ebay.
He thought it was a great idea.
Of course if I loose my file, I'm screwed, but that's what backups are for.
If you loose your file, you can just tighten it back up again with a bit-wrench.
False equivalency. Dems are merely heavily influenced by Wall Street. The Republicans are Wall Street's bought and paid for bitch. This is exactly the sort of silly claim that disenchanted Republicans love to make. They are feeling so low, they can't even deny what a fuckup their team is, so they have to pretend the other team is just as big of a fuckup.
Oh, those adorable bisexual Mac ravers. I'd forgotten all about their deliciously ambiguous sexuality and rebellious fashion sense. Here, have some glow sticks and pacifiers, Mac rave kids! Ah, the good old days, when trolls asked us to think of our breathing, to picture mare sex, and the GNAA was more than just a funny name. Not like trolls these days, with their 'nigger' this and 'Obama's got a bigger dick than me which makes me feel inferior' that. Boring! Open Source developers sodomizing innocent coworkers in an orgy of shit and puke, THAT was a troll. But try telling that to kids these days...
Laughably wrong. There IS NO BILL YET. The Republicans were blocking debate on the bill. They were blocking the process of even coming up with a bill. Wall Street has poured millions of dollars into blocking this reform, and most all of that went to their lapdogs, the Republican party. And THAT is why the Republicans don't support the bill: Wall Street told them not to.
Stop parroting back the talking points Faux News indoctrinates you with. The majority of sane and educated US citizens are not buying your propaganda. The Republicans have isolated themselves inside such an echo chamber, they have started to believe their own lies, and have no idea how outrageous they sound to most people. Propaganda has to be at least believable, and to the vast majority of citizens NOT living in the right wing echo chamber, Republican propaganda has long ago crossed the line into pure fairy tale.
Slashdot Mirror
Not including litigation, which in itself is not including much of the actual impact because most people impacted will not have the resources to sue.
My point is, they should pay all the cost. Which means, with certainty, people who use their products will pay the cost. Which means, people who use less of the product will not be forced to pay the costs of those who use more. It also hopefully means they won't have the cash to pay the huge bonuses to corporate high muckity-mucks. But that's not likely.
Thanks for the support, it gets fucking tiring arguing with likes of ArcherB, Shakrai, and the usual cast of corporate apologists all by myself. I agree completely with your ideas. I think you may be confused on that point... Maybe my presentation of my ideas was not so clear?
Lay back and take it, is that your answer? Might as well enjoy it because you can't stop it? Heck, as long as rape is the way of the world, I might as well be the one doing the raping, right?
Fuck you, you sociopath.
You think that's the only medical cost of this spill? Seriously? Oil is toxic, you know. People swim in the ocean, breath the smoke from the fires, people continents away will be getting cancers they never would have without this spill, and we don't, we can't know what the total costs of this will be.
I'm not saying this is abstract or hard to figure out. I'm saying, BPs liability is capped at $75 million, and the government's fund holds $1.5 billion, and the overall costs will be far greater than that, which means WE will be paying the costs while BP executives continue to take home multi-million dollar bonuses.
"Society" does not come with an environmental cost. We don't have a planned economy, we have a free market, therefore, it is private industry that comes with the cost. Private industry profits, but society pays the cost. Shouldn't, oh I don't know, their profits be less, to cover the costs? Why should WE be the ones to pay the costs while the bastards making the decisions are taking home tens of millions in bonuses? Maybe THEY should pay the costs, they made the decisions.
So, you are NOT saying the free market will fix this? Cool! We're in agreement then. The free market WILL NOT FIX THIS. Glad we agree that the free market will not magically fix everything.
You were NOT implying that BP will shoulder the cost of the cleanup? You are saying, while BP execs take home millions in bonuses and BP stock holders continue to profit, SOCIETY will pay for the cleanup. Glad we agree here, too.
Sorry for saying you were implying things you weren't. I'm glad that we agree that under our version of the free market, private industry takes the profits while society pays the bills. I'm sure you are just as outraged by this unfairness as I am, and you will want to force everyone to pay their own costs rather than making us pay for them. I'm glad that you, too, are tired of the rich stealing from us, and I'm sure that you will want to do as I do and speak out about this unfairness.
Good point, let's instead use "oil" as an example. I pump oil on my property and dump the toxic waste from the process into a stream which runs through both our properties. You are a farmer who irrigates with that stream.
From there, the rest of the analogy pretty much runs the same way. And we come to the same conclusion: those profiting from an activity should pay the real costs to society and not externalize their costs while privatizing the profits. Does that make sense?
No, we don't pay through the cost of oil, because the oil companies have externalized their true costs. Therefore, the current cost of gas does not represent the true cost of producing and using it. We socialize the costs while privatizing the profits.
We do not make our best leaps forward due to tragedy and war. Gunpowder was invented by the Chinese while looking for an elixer of immortality. Democracy was not invented by a general, or due to a tragedy. Neither was calculus. Nor astronomy. Nor the printing press. I mean, come on, what WAS invented due to war or tragedy, that is actually useful?
You present a false dichotomy: accept the status quo, or go back to living in caves. Do you realize how silly that sounds? We have more options than that, you know.
It sounds like you are saying, "Wait until a bunch of people get sick, then make society shoulder the cost while private industry takes all the profit." You'll pardon me if I don't quite think that's fair.
How do you know what the actual damages are? You don't. What are the damages to the fisheries? Tourism? What are the medical costs? You don't know, and you don't seem to care.
BP's liabilities are capped at $75 million because they pay a tax of 8 cents per $90 barrel of crude that goes into a fund that has a whopping $1.5 billion in it. I wish I had the money to buy the laws I want.
BP, liquidate? I hardly think the powers that be would allow that to happen. You do know that we don't actually have a free market, right?
From the article you link to:
Under the law that established the reserve, called the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, the operators of the offshore rig face no more than $75 million in liability for the damages that might be claimed by individuals, companies or the government.
The fund was set up by Congress in 1986 but not financed until after the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska in 1989. In exchange for the limits on liability, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 imposed a tax on oil companies, currently 8 cents for every barrel they produce in this country or import.
Wow, cool. Can I get a limit on my liabilities by paying slightly more in taxes (eight cents per $90 barrel), so I can run around acting irresponsibly without having to pay for it? Wait, I'm not allowed to do that unless I'm a big corporation who can pay for lobbyists and buy the laws I like? Well that's hardly fair.
You missed the IF part, didn't you? IF they foot the bill. They won't, as you say.
Okay, how about this: I build a sewer that leaks onto your property accidentally. And I say, "eh, screw you, I'm not paying for it. My liability is capped by the government, YOU pay for it."
You present a false dichotomy, claiming we either have to pay for these kinds of spills, or use power plants that run on unicorn horns. Sunshine and wind, obviously, are real things and plants CAN run on those. But the point is, it is not an either/or situation.
I'm not saying, "don't drill." I'm saying, make companies pay for their mistakes. Not the taxpayer.
Do you even know what the Fairness Doctrine is? Based on your reply, I don't think you have any clue what it really is or does. This is why we have the Internet, people, you can look things up so you don't sound like an idiot saying something is actually something entirely different.
Shakrai was implying that the free market will take care of things and BP will shoulder the entire cost of the cleanup. He was also making a false dichotomy by claiming that we either pay the cost of having spills, or have no energy, which is bullshit.
That is the cost that BP will pay, yes. The cost of cleanup does not cover the entire externality imposed on us. Do you suppose the cleanup will be perfect? Do you suppose all the damage done will be undone? Do you suppose pigs can fly?
We are paying for the majority of the impact, which is far more than just mopping up the oil, not BP. As others have already raised the issues with your pathetic defense of Big Business that I was going to raise, I will let you respond to them instead. I look forward to reading your replies to Mindcontrolled and Remus.
You do realize that continually defending the owning class will not convince them to let you into their club, don't you? You are their useful idiot, defending the indefensible so they don't even have to sully themselves debating the hoi polloi. And you will be paid for your effort, with their mocking laughter.
Do you know what trapping is? Separations? I don't think you do. The thing is, a client sees a file on their computer in RGB, on their monitor, under their lights. A professional firm will have calibrated monitors in a lighting booth that provides calibrated light. And they will have calibrations for the printing process they will be using. Dot gain, bleed, registration, there are a LOT of things going on in pre-press. We're talking professional publication here, not printing up a poster at your local reprographics firm.
However, to the guy you replied to: you wouldn't freaking KNOW if someone gave you a GIMP file, a .tiff is a .tiff. And plenty of people DO send in RGB files. Not everyone is obsessive about color matching, especially on short run and one off jobs. And most people won't be creating the whole layout in PS anyway, they will be using, oh I don't know, a page layout program? And THAT is what usually does the color conversions and separations, right? You can edit a pic in GIMP and do the rest of your pre-flight in the page layout program you normally use, right?
Who pays for the mistakes? Who pays for the environmental impact? If BP were forced to shoulder the entire cost of this mistake, they would go bankrupt. And so, as usual, it is the rest of us who will have to pay. Socialism for the rich, paid for by the poor.
If you and I lived next to each other, and I ran a pipe from my toilet into your yard, you would be pretty pissed off, wouldn't you? You'd probably demand I stop shitting in your yard. And I would say, "Human civilization can not exist without environmental impact, shit happens, get over your knee jerk reaction and get used to it, hippie."
Who? I've never seen anyone on the left call for silencing anyone. The hate crime laws, now, as implemented, how are they censorship? You DO know that nothing in the laws criminalizes hate speech, right? They only provide higher penalties for actual violent crimes.
My messiah? Obama is FAR too conservative for me. I'm not denying there are big, big problems with the Dems. But they are still the lesser of the two evils.
God damn. Now I'm REALLY nostalgic. Segfault, right?
Okay, you included Sanders and Kucinich in your list, I retract my previous 'disenchanted Republican' statement. But that was previous spending. Wall Street has fallen out of love with the Democrats, who haven't done what they wanted, and is now concentrating on funding the Republicans. Unfortunately, the Republicans seem to be spending all their campaign funds on wild parties with lesbian bondage strippers.
I just use password strength answer and I keep a file of them. I had a great conversation with an online bank. Security had detected a pattern that was unusual and called me. They asked me what high school I went to. I told them UMc9vdX0QLOH (not really, but you get the idea.)
The guy was flabbergasted.
I told him that although I appreciated their security, I didn't trust them, say, to not sell a used laptop on ebay.
He thought it was a great idea.
Of course if I loose my file, I'm screwed, but that's what backups are for.
If you loose your file, you can just tighten it back up again with a bit-wrench.
False equivalency. Dems are merely heavily influenced by Wall Street. The Republicans are Wall Street's bought and paid for bitch. This is exactly the sort of silly claim that disenchanted Republicans love to make. They are feeling so low, they can't even deny what a fuckup their team is, so they have to pretend the other team is just as big of a fuckup.
Oh, those adorable bisexual Mac ravers. I'd forgotten all about their deliciously ambiguous sexuality and rebellious fashion sense. Here, have some glow sticks and pacifiers, Mac rave kids! Ah, the good old days, when trolls asked us to think of our breathing, to picture mare sex, and the GNAA was more than just a funny name. Not like trolls these days, with their 'nigger' this and 'Obama's got a bigger dick than me which makes me feel inferior' that. Boring! Open Source developers sodomizing innocent coworkers in an orgy of shit and puke, THAT was a troll. But try telling that to kids these days...
Damn kids, git offa mah lawn.
Laughably wrong. There IS NO BILL YET. The Republicans were blocking debate on the bill. They were blocking the process of even coming up with a bill. Wall Street has poured millions of dollars into blocking this reform, and most all of that went to their lapdogs, the Republican party. And THAT is why the Republicans don't support the bill: Wall Street told them not to.
Stop parroting back the talking points Faux News indoctrinates you with. The majority of sane and educated US citizens are not buying your propaganda. The Republicans have isolated themselves inside such an echo chamber, they have started to believe their own lies, and have no idea how outrageous they sound to most people. Propaganda has to be at least believable, and to the vast majority of citizens NOT living in the right wing echo chamber, Republican propaganda has long ago crossed the line into pure fairy tale.