3 ms·

interesting how the whole Repub Party message of "free market is good, regulation is bad" sounds in the context of this giant oil spill disaster. hopefully this

interesting how the whole Repub Party message of "free market is good, regulation is bad" sounds in the context of this giant oil spill disaster. hopefully this classic example of Tragedy of the Commons wakes some more people up.

kiba 17y ago
I heard the BP gave a lot of money to Obama. Maybe it have something to do with Obama wants to stop drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. I mean, this is like the first oil spill in the gulf of Mexico? Beside, isn't a whole lot of stuff got tested by Underwriter laboratory and lot of regulations and standard were simply copied from Underwriter Laboratory guidelines? This company been around for more than 200 years. Maybe private regulations have some merit. (coupled with consumer lawsuits to hold private regulatory agencies accountable) P.S. I think one of the argument has been proposed against government regulations is that when the regulators failed, they get more money so they can do their "job" better. Another argument is that people trust government too much, so it should be left to private institutions because private institutions are trusted less thus get more scrutiny.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
  - camccann 17y ago
    Actually, mkramlich specifically said the Republican party's message, which I think most people would agree in regards to. What the Republican party actually does in office, never mind what other parties do, is another matter, and not necessarily related in any meaningful way to aforementioned "message".
- kiba 17y ago
  I guess spreading rumors about politicians isn't exactly socially approved around here, neither do deflecting the questions. But on the other hand, I still think the whole issue is that fisheries are not exactly owned by fishermen, thus the whole lack of lawsuit threats against oilmen for polluting their properties. This mean we have a tragedy of the common in the ocean. (Overfishing issues could properly get resolved too, but how do you own schools of fish?) Regardless, BP will have to pay a big cleanup bill when this is all over. It's a disincentive in itself. Also, isn't there's a danger of regulators being brought off? Fishermen don't have much of incentive to ruin their livelhood by accepting bride from oilmen. So maybe they'll be able to agree on inspectors agreed upon by oilmen and fishermen. It won't eliminate the whole issue of bridling probably, must probably raise the price of corruption higher?
firemanx 17y ago
Or, you could take a less polarized stance and realize that the regulation in this case failed miserably as well: AP IMPACT: Fed'l inspections on rig not as claimed http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100516/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_inspections http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100516/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_... There's enough blame to go around, all things considered.

kiba 17y ago

I heard the BP gave a lot of money to Obama. Maybe it have something to do with Obama wants to stop drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. I mean, this is like the first oil spill in the gulf of Mexico? Beside, isn't a whole lot of stuff got tested by Underwriter laboratory and lot of regulations and standard were simply copied from Underwriter Laboratory guidelines? This company been around for more than 200 years. Maybe private regulations have some merit. (coupled with consumer lawsuits to hold private regulatory agencies accountable) P.S. I think one of the argument has been proposed against government regulations is that when the regulators failed, they get more money so they can do their "job" better. Another argument is that people trust government too much, so it should be left to private institutions because private institutions are trusted less thus get more scrutiny.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- camccann 17y ago
  Actually, mkramlich specifically said the Republican party's message, which I think most people would agree in regards to. What the Republican party actually does in office, never mind what other parties do, is another matter, and not necessarily related in any meaningful way to aforementioned "message".
kiba 17y ago
I guess spreading rumors about politicians isn't exactly socially approved around here, neither do deflecting the questions. But on the other hand, I still think the whole issue is that fisheries are not exactly owned by fishermen, thus the whole lack of lawsuit threats against oilmen for polluting their properties. This mean we have a tragedy of the common in the ocean. (Overfishing issues could properly get resolved too, but how do you own schools of fish?) Regardless, BP will have to pay a big cleanup bill when this is all over. It's a disincentive in itself. Also, isn't there's a danger of regulators being brought off? Fishermen don't have much of incentive to ruin their livelhood by accepting bride from oilmen. So maybe they'll be able to agree on inspectors agreed upon by oilmen and fishermen. It won't eliminate the whole issue of bridling probably, must probably raise the price of corruption higher?

firemanx 17y ago

Or, you could take a less polarized stance and realize that the regulation in this case failed miserably as well: AP IMPACT: Fed'l inspections on rig not as claimed http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100516/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_inspections http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100516/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_... There's enough blame to go around, all things considered.