Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
The obvious response to the oil rig explosion and subsequent spill is to reduce government regulation and simply allow consumers to choose whether or not to buy oil from companies that act irresponsibly. While I can't think of a single instance in the history of the planet where less regulation made an industry more responsible, a very convincing person called RnPl2012FreeMarketz on the Mises forums seems to think it will work.
|
Regulation is not magic. When the level or type of regulation is inefficient, less of it certainly can lead to improvements. I think it is very easy for regulators to be overly burdened with things that do not matter - would you want (given limited resources) the focus of regulation targeted in the areas that would have actually prevented the spill?
I never argue for no regulation. I think there is a balancing point, don;t you?
---------- Post added at 04:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:12 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
Presumably the president didn't come up with the leakage rate calculations, but you seemed to blame him for their inaccuracy.
|
I blame him for mis-informing the public.
Quote:
|
I think you've pretty well established that the things you think are true frequently have no bearing on what actually is, so I'm not sure why you're sharing your opinion here as if it has the weight of real, factual evidence.
|
The report agrees with my position.
Quote:
|
As it stands now, how have any BP executives suffered anything remotely harmful in the aftermath of the spill?
|
The CEO got fired. The value of the company dropped about 50%. The future of the company is still at risk. Some may still face civil and criminal damages. The company faces more scrutiny, it will be more difficult for them to get new opportunities to drill in deep water, putting them at a disadvantage. Their cost of capital went up. The company may get bought out. Etc. Etc. Etc.