Discussion: Global Warming, Emission Standards, and Other Environmental Issues

[StorminNorman]

Master Hand > Invisible Hand > Dead Man's Hand > Regulatory Hand

 

[The Overlord]

Did I ever compare a regulated country to North Korea?

No where, I just like asking extreme questions to gauge people's opinions.

Norway is free because the government has decided to allow freedom in certain areas - like free speech. They are not completely free though and the government has the ability to restrict rights if they so choose (it just happens that in a Democracy, it takes a great deal of political power to do so - as well as a goal in doing so).

Except you do realize that if the Norwegian government just got rid of freedom speech, they likely would become very unpopular and may even be overthrown.

Freedom can exist due to social convention, some things are so enshrined in a society due to social convention that getting rid of them would be almost impossible.

No. The key is a government that respects individual rights - such a country, like the one America was meant to be, would not have a military dictatorship that abuses the rights of it's citizens.

The fact remains capitalism is a economic system, not a political one, you can have a free enterprise system with democracy or a dictatorship.

Let ask you this, do you think its right that some companies in the west set up shop in countries where governments don't care about their people? Is that not exploiting tyranny to make yourself richer?

We won't know if it's possible unless we try, right? You know what we DO know is not practical? The mixed/fascist economy that we are left with today. Or have you not noticed the incredible amounts of debt that has been accumulated by America, Canada and Europe?

Except if you are wrong, you would end up creating a cyber punk nightmare society.

You can choose to care about whatever you want, it really doesn't matter to me.

Fine but should anyone take your arguments seriously if they are based on unproven ideal?

A free market wouldn't necessarily prevent the oil leak - though what's the point in regulation if it couldn't do it either?

What we have seen is that regulation doesn't do anything except raise the prices of goods, curtailing innovation and limiting competition for companies. If the purpose of regulation is to prevent lead from getting into our toys, or disease in our food, or oil in our water - and yet we still get lead in our toys, salmonella and BP, what purpose does it serve?

You know, besides enriching the pockets of politicians?

Yeah and murders still happen despite the fact murder is illegal, does mean we should just make murder legal just because murders still happen even if they are illegal? How would making murder legal prevent more murders?

But if true capitalism existed in the first, wouldn't these companies ensure that we wouldn't have massive oil spills or lead based toys in the first place? Wouldn't there be no need for any kind of regulation, if some companies would stop doing irresponsible things, but they do these things don't they?

How do you know these companies would make products that are safer and not damage the environment with fewer rules and enforcements, shouldn't they be doing that anyway? This spill is bad for business and was caused gross negligence on the part of BP, so why did it happen?

So why did the spill happened? Simple, the same reason hard core Libertarianism fails as an ideology, greed doesn't make people rational, it makes them irrational. BP thought they could save a few bucks with these short cuts they took, they let their greed their good judgment, that often happens with greed, its why greed is considered a vice, it makes people think short term, not long term and makes them ignore important details.

 

[The Overlord]

You are asking you same old loaded questions with crazy assumptions.

The MMS is the administration's regulatory agency. It's not over or under regulation, they didn't enforce it properly. It's not the magical Phlebotinum people make it out to be. The fact is, I posted the public's expectation of Obama here is absurd. There is little he can do.

But if you are the believer in regulation will solve the shortcomings of the market, then I point out where they could have solved it then and there with the MMS, but they didn't. Pro-regulators should be bashing the administration on this - but I wouldn't. It gives a false sense security and moral hazard on controls. Just like the Canadian banks right now. Leveraged up 20 times because the government haz their backs (even the worst bailed out banks were at least half of this leverage).

Which brings us to this: this is an example of property rights fail. The government should not be granting out free license like this to BP to begin with. BP Should have been forced to deal with with the businessmen and fisherman. They would need to reach settlement on conditions, provisions and liabilities etc... They have all the incentive in the world micro and inspect stuff like this because it would damage their business and livelihood. But there was no respect to property rights here, because the government created the moral hazard. All the government manage to do is usurp their property right and limit the liability. Now taxpayers could very well be on the leash for this, all in the name of the mighty regulatory hand who knows better.

Like I said I like liking asking extreme questions to gauge someone's opinion, its just fun. No point being completely serious on this forum.

And if there was no regulation on BP is this case, they still would have the bad casing, so what's the point of your criticism?

The fact is almost no one would be calling for any kind of regulation if companies didn't act in a irresponsible manner in the first place.

True capitalism exists, shouldn't these companies have prevented stuff themselves? This spill wasn't a simple mistake, it was gross negligence.

Wouldn't denying BP drilling rights in that area have been considered big government and over regulation? What is big government and over regulation and what isn't, is there any absolute definition for these loaded made up political terms?

What makes private companies less likely to abuse their power then the government? Why should one be trusted over the other?

 

[StorminNorman]

Except you do realize that if the Norwegian government just got rid of freedom speech, they likely would become very unpopular and may even be overthrown.

Freedom can exist due to social convention, some things are so enshrined in a society due to social convention that getting rid of them would be almost impossible.

I mentioned that. But I don't see why you would be happy with a government that has the ABILITY to take away freedom of speech, but chooses not to use it.

In a capitalist government, the ability would not exist.

The fact remains capitalism is a economic system, not a political one, you can have a free enterprise system with democracy or a dictatorship.

Let ask you this, do you think its right that some companies in the west set up shop in countries where governments don't care about their people? Is that not exploiting tyranny to make yourself richer?

Capitalism transcends economics - capitalism is the economic implementation of individual rights. It is true, you can have free markets without democracy (it would probably be easier to have free markets without democracy), but I would argue that a dictatorship that protects individual rights and stays out of the economy is significantly superior than a democracy with a controlled economy.

Yes, I think it's right for companies in the west to go to countries that have looser labor laws. I think it's wrong that companies are forced to do that due to tyrannical American labor laws.

Except if you are wrong, you would end up creating a cyber punk nightmare society.

Okay.

Fine but should anyone take your arguments seriously if they are based on unproven ideal?

Yes, because I history shows that the more respect for individual rights you show, the more prosperous your country is. Furthermore, capitalist have tended to be right in predicting the collapsing of the Western economy. For example, Dox has been right on almost everything.

Yeah and murders still happen despite the fact murder is illegal, does mean we should just make murder legal just because murders still happen even if they are illegal? How would making murder legal prevent more murders?

Regulations are not in place to punish wrong doing, regulations are put in place to prevent wrong doing from ever being able to happen. Laws against murder are meant to punish that do murder. You are trying to compare apples to Applebees.

But if true capitalism existed in the first, wouldn't these companies ensure that we wouldn't have massive oil spills or lead based toys in the first place? Wouldn't there be no need for any kind of regulation, if some companies would stop doing irresponsible things, but they do these things don't they?

How do you know these companies would make products that are safer and not damage the environment with fewer rules and enforcements, shouldn't they be doing that anyway? This spill is bad for business and was caused gross negligence on the part of BP, so why did it happen?

So why did the spill happened? Simple, the same reason hard core Libertarianism fails as an ideology, greed doesn't make people rational, it makes them irrational. BP thought they could save a few bucks with these short cuts they took, they let their greed their good judgment, that often happens with greed, its why greed is considered a vice, it makes people think short term, not long term and makes them ignore important details.

In no way is capitalism a magic wand that wipes humanity free of their flaws. There will be greedy companies in a capitalist system or a mixed economy. There will be good companies.

Regulation, however, doesn't prevent greedy companies from being greedy and ****ing up. Regulation does require industries to hire lobbyists and bribe politicians. Regulation does alter how a business operates - for example, its hard to know if the leak would be so deep (and thus so hard to plug) if there weren't Federal restrictions on where to drill.

 

[Marx]

BP CHAIRMAN: 'SMALL PEOPLE MATTER TO US'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/16/bp-small-people-matter-to_n_614705.html

Wow...could you sound any more elitist???

 

[The Overlord]

I mentioned that. But I don't see why you would be happy with a government that has the ABILITY to take away freedom of speech, but chooses not to use it.

In a capitalist government, the ability would not exist.

I come from society where social conventions mean a lot.

Besides all of this is theory, in theory freedom of speech is better under this supposed idealized capitalist society, unless it doesn't work.

Capitalism transcends economics - capitalism is the economic implementation of individual rights. It is true, you can have free markets without democracy (it would probably be easier to have free markets without democracy), but I would argue that a dictatorship that protects individual rights and stays out of the economy is significantly superior than a democracy with a controlled economy.

I think you have a different definition of capitalism then Webster's:

" an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market".

That says nothing about politics or a political system, just economics. You have that same economic under immoral dictatorship. The Chilean military dictatorship didn't do anything to interfere with the rights of companies to make money, but did go around going killing homeless people.

You are saying capitalism is a morally good system, that's not quite correct, its not morally wrong either, its rather indifferent to morals. But because it is indifferent to morals that means it doesn't necessarily promote freedom, the economic system can exist in a completely immoral society, its a not a moral or political system, merely an economic one.

From a Libertarian you can argue China has more economic "freedom" then us, because the Chinese government has no environmental or labor laws, but in terms of social freedom, who is better? You say China economy is doing very well, but there is a price for that.

China has embrace capitalism, but not Democracy. You don't have embrace Democracy or freedom to make capitalism work.

Yes, I think it's right for companies in the west to go to countries that have looser labor laws. I think it's wrong that companies are forced to do that due to tyrannical American labor laws.

Ah yes, so setting up factories in other countries that are unsafe and use child labor with wages are next to nothing isn't tyrannical? Especially if the benefits of the company goes to the government that oppresses these people in the first

If that's definition of freedom, I find rather it silly. Robbing poor children of their future is not freedom, its slavery and its evil.

Okay.

So you don't possibility of complete disaster if you incorrect? You could create a corrupt cartel state if you are wrong.

Yes, because I history shows that the more respect for individual rights you show, the more prosperous your country is. Furthermore, capitalist have tended to be right in predicting the collapsing of the Western economy. For example, Dox has been right on almost everything.

Dox doesn't support Democracy, so I clearly I doubt you think he is right about everything and I have serious doubts about Dox's ideas sometimes, but according to you I guess that makes me a fool. Clearly disagreeing with you two makes on ae dupe of evil communist forces.

This is historical theory not fact and you still have no proof to back this theory up.

Communism worked well in theory, but not in practice.

Regulations are not in place to punish wrong doing, regulations are put in place to prevent wrong doing from ever being able to happen. Laws against murder are meant to punish that do murder. You are trying to compare apples to Applebees.

Except some corporations put pollution in the air and the water, doesn't that interfere with the property rights of others, who said they own the sky and the water, what use is my property is someone else is legally allowed to defile it. I wouldn't be allowed to simply put garbage on a neighbor's lawn, why should a company get the right to defile the air around my property? This isn't about equal rights, its giving one section of society superior rights over another?

What about laws about public safety or criminal negligence? You get fines for not wearing a seat belt, one can go drunk driving and not necessarily hurt someone its still illegal, if one keeps an unsafe property and someone gets injured there that person is legally responsible and I'm pretty sure a neighbor can report you if your property is unsafe. Why should a corporation receive less societal limits then a private individual?

The thing you are ignoring is a lot of corporations are far more powerful then an average person, one person couldn't destroy the Gulf like that, one person can't threatening millions of people with lead based toys.

I think the more power you have, the more responsibilities you should have and I would apply to anyone, in the government, a union or a corporation. Anyone who has the power to cause a major disaster, should have limits put on them to prevent that from happening.

In no way is capitalism a magic wand that wipes humanity free of their flaws. There will be greedy companies in a capitalist system or a mixed economy. There will be good companies.

Regulation, however, doesn't prevent greedy companies from being greedy and ****ing up. Regulation does require industries to hire lobbyists and bribe politicians. Regulation does alter how a business operates - for example, its hard to know if the leak would be so deep (and thus so hard to plug) if there weren't Federal restrictions on where to drill.

Oh yes, the Sarah Palin argument, that's a great way to ensure BP doesn't have to take personal responsibility.

Like BP or some other company wouldn't have wanted to drill in that area to get oil sooner or later anyway. Just because they could drill in Alaska wildlife preserves, doesn't mean they wouldn't wanted to drill in Gulf to. How do we they wouldn't have sloppy in Alaska too caused another spill?

Sure there will be good companies, just there like there good people, but there are just

The fact is, can you prove without regulation more companies would do more to ensure safer and more environmentally friendly production?

How did regulation force BP to be sloppy, how did it force BP not to have a plan to deal with a spill?

Again as Jon Stewart pointed out, I fail to see how supporting meat inspections leads to supporting a tyrannical state.

 

[:eek:]

The globe recorded its warmest May since record keeping began in 1880, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). The May temperature anomaly of 0.69°C (1.24°F) beat the previous record set in 1998 by 0.06°C. We've now had three consecutive warmest months on record, the first time that has happened since 1998. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies also rated May 2010 as the warmest May on record, tied with May 1998. Both NOAA and NASA rated the year-to-date period, January - May, as the warmest such period on record, and the last 12-month period (June 2009 - May 2010) as the warmest 12-month period on record. May 2010 global ocean temperatures were the second warmest on record, while land temperatures were the warmest on record. Global satellite-measured temperatures for the lowest 8 km of the atmosphere were the 2nd warmest on record in May, according to both the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) groups.

For those interested, NCDC has a page of notable weather highlights from May 2010.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1509

 

[chaseter]

It has been incredibly hot here. It was 106 the other day...106 at the beginning of Summer

I would like to hear those idiot pundits who were saying 'global climate change what?' when we had that terrible cold weather a few months back.

 

[Raiden]

Rep. Barton apologizes to BP for Obama 'shakedown'

Well, that was fast. Barely 10 minutes into Thursday's landmark congressional testimony — where BP CEO Tony Hayward and other leading company executives are revisiting the Gulf Coast oil spill before a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee — the first controversial statement has entered the record.

And no, it didn't come from the gaffe-prone BP brass. Instead, GOP Rep. Joe Barton of Texas — the ranking member on the House Energy Committee — made a decisive splash in his opening remarks. A staunch conservative who has a long record of backing oil industry interests, Barton apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward for the "shakedown" the Obama White House pulled on the company. (Barton has received more than $1.5 million in campaign donations from the oil industry, according to Open Secrets, a nonpartisan watchdog group.)

"I'm not speaking for anybody in the House of Representatives but myself," Barton explained, "but I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday. I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown. In this case a $20 billion shakedown."

[Photos: Obama meets with BP executives]

Wrapping up, Barton said: "I apologize. I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, is subject to some sort of political pressure that is, again, in my words — amounts to a shakedown, so I apologize."

 

[Marx]

A shakedown!?!

 

[Carcharodon]

I can't help but laugh at the people who are trying to use this situation as an example of why we should have less regulation. Completely and utterly ridiculous. They're so mindlessly devoted to their political mantra that they seek to turn any major problem into one of government intervention and interference.

Good drones.

 

[Paradoxium]

Like I said I like liking asking extreme questions to gauge someone's opinion, its just fun. No point being completely serious on this forum.

And if there was no regulation on BP is this case, they still would have the bad casing, so what's the point of your criticism?

The fact is almost no one would be calling for any kind of regulation if companies didn't act in a irresponsible manner in the first place.

True capitalism exists, shouldn't these companies have prevented stuff themselves? This spill wasn't a simple mistake, it was gross negligence.

Wouldn't denying BP drilling rights in that area have been considered big government and over regulation? What is big government and over regulation and what isn't, is there any absolute definition for these loaded made up political terms?

Who the hell said there was no regulation in BP. What part of private property do you not understand. It's not the samething as big government.

I said it should have been treated in a properties right issue to begin with; fishermen would have owned a stake and have conditions (such as constant monitoring and getting third parties involved) on drilling and/or prevented it even. I said they have more incentive to keep things guarded since their business and livelihood are stacked in it. Whereas the government DO NOT. Without private property or respect towards it, there is no market period. Even if you disagree with the freemarket, it's hard to argue anti-private property ideas with the freemarket gelling together.

There was no respect for property rights here. They went ahead and usurped everything, give thumbs up to whomever they choose (aka BP), limited the liability, then created a moral hazard under the false pretense government regulation protected everything. Regulation is not some phlebotinum. They simply didn't enforce what already existed. The actual quality of it and enforcement is more important than adding more. And you guys thinking doing the same thing will result in something different?

This is why the finance industry is such a huge joke. They hire lawyers to regulate the financials, and they think adding more will change things.

 

[StorminNorman]

I can't help but laugh at the people who are trying to use this situation as an example of why we should have less regulation. Completely and utterly ridiculous. They're so mindlessly devoted to their political mantra that they seek to turn any major problem into one of government intervention and interference.

Good drones.

Oh, definitely. Because, after all, it's clear that regulation saves the day. After all, it's not as if the oil spill happened in spite of government regulation.

Regulation doesn't keep oil out of water, it doesn't keep salmonella out of food, it doesn't keep lead out of toys, it doesn't keep poison out of Shrek glasses, etc. etc. etc.

Good companies do things right, bad companies **** up and regulation pads the pockets of politicians, limits innovation and increases prices for consumers.

 

[Carcharodon]

Oh, definitely. Because, after all, it's clear that regulation saves the day. After all, it's not as if the oil spill happened in spite of government regulation.

Regulation doesn't keep oil out of water, it doesn't keep salmonella out of food, it doesn't keep lead out of toys, it doesn't keep poison out of Shrek glasses, etc. etc. etc.

Good companies do things right, bad companies **** up and regulation pads the pockets of politicians, limits innovation and increases prices for consumers.

So because it's not 100% effective we should do away with it? Do you honestly believe that these types of occurrences would become LESS frequent in the absence of regulation?

You've presented this line of reasoning before, and every time you do I can't help but wonder how, in your mind, it makes sense. The logic is so flawed it makes my head spin.

 

[Carcharodon]

The actual quality of it and enforcement is more important than adding more.

I agree with this, most definitely. Quality over quantity.

 

[Marx]

Did anyone hear the news that BP's CEO Tony Hayward is attending a luxury yacht race today?

 

[Marx]

I can't help but laugh at the people who are trying to use this situation as an example of why we should have less regulation. Completely and utterly ridiculous. They're so mindlessly devoted to their political mantra that they seek to turn any major problem into one of government intervention and interference.

Good drones.

I tend to agree.

 

[StorminNorman]

So because it's not 100% effective we should do away with it? Do you honestly believe that these types of occurrences would become LESS frequent in the absence of regulation?

You've presented this line of reasoning before, and every time you do I can't help but wonder how, in your mind, it makes sense. The logic is so flawed it makes my head spin.

When BP is destroyed due to the finical consequences of their cost-cutting measures, yes - I don't you need regulation to prevent other energy companies from not making the same mistakes BP made.

Regulations are always reactionary - we are going to get regulation to prevent this exact situation from happening again. Of course, such regulation is unnecessary as the real consequences are enough to prevent this situation from happening again.

Again, good companies don't need regulations to do the right thing. Bad companies are going to try to influence regulations and use every loophole they can (like BP did). Regulation isn't the cause for good companies to be good, and it doesn't keep bad companies from being bad.

 

[Carcharodon]

When BP is destroyed due to the finical consequences of their cost-cutting measures, yes - I don't you need regulation to prevent other energy companies from not making the same mistakes BP made.

Regulations are always reactionary - we are going to get regulation to prevent this exact situation from happening again. Of course, such regulation is unnecessary as the real consequences are enough to prevent this situation from happening again.

Again, good companies don't need regulations to do the right thing. Bad companies are going to try to influence regulations and use every loophole they can (like BP did). Regulation isn't the cause for good companies to be good, and it doesn't keep bad companies from being bad.

I think you're being more than naive.

 

[Paradoxium]

Actually it's true. You'd be shocked how much business lobbies influence the regulation in their favor. Lots of monopolies are created because of this (see AT&T). Natch for the financial industry. The term: corporatism.

 

[Kelly]

Did anyone hear the news that BP's CEO Tony Hayward is attending a luxury yacht race today?

I don't necessarily see the big deal, but like Obama going to concerts at the White House, etc....the perception sucks. Not necessarily a big deal, but it just doesn't look good when something this catastrophic is happening.

 

[The Overlord]

Who the hell said there was no regulation in BP. What part of private property do you not understand. It's not the samething as big government.

I said it should have been treated in a properties right issue to begin with; fishermen would have owned a stake and have conditions (such as constant monitoring and getting third parties involved) on drilling and/or prevented it even. I said they have more incentive to keep things guarded since their business and livelihood are stacked in it. Whereas the government DO NOT. Without private property or respect towards it, there is no market period. Even if you disagree with the freemarket, it's hard to argue anti-private property ideas with the freemarket gelling together.

There was no respect for property rights here. They went ahead and usurped everything, give thumbs up to whomever they choose (aka BP), limited the liability, then created a moral hazard under the false pretense government regulation protected everything. Regulation is not some phlebotinum. They simply didn't enforce what already existed. The actual quality of it and enforcement is more important than adding more. And you guys thinking doing the same thing will result in something different?

This is why the finance industry is such a huge joke. They hire lawyers to regulate the financials, and they think adding more will change things.

And if the regulations were enforced and the proper inspections were done, would that have stopped the oil spill? How would no regulation have stopped the spill?

OK, what evidence do you have that a spill like this would have been prevented with less regulation or that there will be less environmental damage done by companies? Do you have any evidence that environmental problems will get better with less regulation? Do you have any evidence of solutions to this spill that would have existed in an unregulated oil industry to this problem?

The fact is I bet several conservatives and Libertarians would have said it would been big government if the government didn't allow BP to drill there and now these same people blame Obama for not doing enough to deal with the spill, even it was created by a private company and Obama was already been heavily criticized for getting involved with the affairs of private companies in the past, so what is it: when does something become big government or not?

What would you see to arguments that preventing BP from drilling there is a big government? Who defines what big government and how is that not just some BS term that to be twisted to fight for an ever changing political agenda?

 

[Kelly]

The regulations that WERE IN PLACE, were not being enforced, more regulations is not the answer, less regulations is not the answer....those are all JUST WORDS.

Just like immigration, ENFORCE THE DAMN LAWS THAT ARE ON THE BOOKS, stop taking the paycheck, and not doing the job. The fact that BP was allowed to have ON RECORD, IN WRITING their plan in case there was an oil spill of this nature, and the government let that pass.........THE GOVERNMENT Bush AND Obama's administration ****ed that up....more regulation isn't going to help that, because again, those are just words....IF THEY ARE NOT GOING TO ENFORCE THE REGULATIONS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS, WHY IN THE HELL WOULD ANYONE THINK THEY ARE GOING TO ENFORCE MORE? That's just stupid.


And, as I watch Rahm Emanuel on "this week" its all POLITICS TO HIM....he sits there and says that the Republicans don't care about the Fishermen they care about BP because they are not happy with the 20 billion escrow account. DO THEY NOT LISTEN...? The Republicans are mad because they want a 3rd party to handle that escrow account, NOT the Obama administration.....I don't blame them, I don't trust the Obama admin to handle that 20 billion either, because they sure as hell aren't handling the other stimulus money and their other spending well..... *sighs*

This whole thing is so ****ed up its not even funny....

 

[StorminNorman]

I think you're being more than naive.

I think it's naive to think that the government can effectively regulate a complex industry.

 

[Kelly]

It's naive that to think this government can do ANYTHING....at this point.