9 ms·

Far From Gulf, a Spill Scourge 5 Decades Old

14 points by whyenot 16y ago

sophacles 16y ago
Obviously fisheries are not important. If such things mattered to anyone, competition would have forced the oil company to be safer and cleaner. Or at least thats how people claim pure capitalism works.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- petewarden 16y ago
  > that's how people claim capitalism works I'd be more impressed if you cited anyone who pushes your strawman argument. Even hardcore libertarians acknowledge there are 'negative externalities', actions like pollution that harm others, that aren't captured in the monetary costs of transactions. I'm beating up on your analysis because it doesn't help us find a solution. The libertarian approach is inadequate, since after-the-fact litigation is obviously no deterrent. On the other end of the spectrum it's clear from the article that the Nigerian government is acting in the elite's interests by protecting illegal refineries so they can benefit from the profits, so it seems unlikely they can act as effective regulators. Should we boycott Shell? Would a Chinese oil company just take over if they pulled out? I don't have the answers, but I know to find them we have to wrestle with the evidence, not waste our energies attacking strawman arguments.
- clammer 16y ago
  False. Capitalism features property rights. Unless the oil company owns all the polluted property, they are liable for the damage to the property of others (at least under a capitalist system). The problem: Nigeria is a corrupt third world country. It has nothing to do with capitalism.
  - sophacles 16y ago
    False, under capitalism corporations have limited liability, and the ability to own other corporations. All liability will be handed to a wholly owned, but separate corporation, which will go bankrupt at the first sign of a lawsuit. No one can be held accountable because "thats capitalism, its a shame that bad stuff occurred, but whatcha gonna do?". Further, it is not a result of corrupt government, it is a result of corporations being allowed to have more power than those who enforce the property rights that you claim would fix things. Last time anyone tried to stop an oil company in nigeria, the government had a choice of ceasing to exist, or helping the giant company. Had another country done this, such would be declared a belligerent act. Finally, regarding the BP thing this is being compared to: Do you think that BP will ever be held accountable fully for the economic damage it has done? The fishing industry will not be compensated every year by BP. Should anyone try to hold them accountable like that, they will bust out the "this is so unfair, it must be unconstitutional, how could we, an oil company, be held responsible for a bad fishing day. Communism!" rhetoric, and those on the damaged end will be left high and dry. Fortunately tho, we'll be told "capitalism works just like you think it should" and you can go put your head back in the sand.
    - clammer 16y ago
      And here we go, more people blaming a system of private enterprise when government fails them...so the solution must be more government, right? Because the government failed, we must need more of it. Sure, that makes sense. >all liability will be handed to a wholly owned, but separate corporation, which will go bankrupt at the first sign of a lawsuit So, if BP was a sole proprietor owned by Bill Gates this would somehow be better. You don't think Bill Gates could go bankrupt? No, you probably don't like any form of private business. It's not just big bad corporations. Sorry for make assumptions about what system you're advocating, but you're not really stating an alternative. What type of benevolent (bankrupt proof) organizational structure should drill for oil? The only think I can think of is the government. Therefore, you're proposing state controlled oil production. In this case, it would somehow be magically cleaner and less corrupt? Reality says otherwise.
  - hyperbovine 16y ago
    The problem: Nigeria is a corrupt third world country. It has nothing to do with capitalism. Hah. On an internet filled with naive, uninformed assertions, this is a true standout. Virtually every defining moment in the history of that unfortunate country can be traced back to the meddling of Western capitalists looking to make a buck. It starts with slavery and ends with oil, with a healthy dose of British colonialism in the middle. Their dysfunctional system of government, permanent underclass, environmental destruction--it has _everything_ to do with capitalism. Put down the Milton Friedman koolaid and dig deeper.
    - clammer 16y ago
      So corruption doesn't happen in communist countries? And communist countries never attempt to meddle in the affairs of others? There was nothing naive about my comment, as much as you made naive assumptions about my comment. My point is: Capitalism != mercantilism. Capitalism != corruption. I would never dispute that much of the underdevelopment of the middle east and africa isn't due to meddling by foreign counties (though, not just western). However, corruption has more to do with culture than economic structure. Why do people pervert what capitalism is just so they can tear it down?
tlack 16y ago
How are the plants not dead in the first photo? Small bushes like that would die immediately in such oily muck I'd expect.
whyenot 16y ago
In the US, when an oil company screws up, they are liable for billions of dollars and then end up on the hot seat in front of the US Congress. But, much of the oil we use in the US comes from places where there is little if any regulation and oversight. You could just as easily exchange Nigeria with Ecuador, Peru or Indonesia. It's a little frustrating how our concern for the environment sometimes seems to end at the US border.

14 points by whyenot 16y ago

Obviously fisheries are not important. If such things mattered to anyone, competition would have forced the oil company to be safer and cleaner. Or at least thats how people claim pure capitalism works.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
petewarden 16y ago
> that's how people claim capitalism works I'd be more impressed if you cited anyone who pushes your strawman argument. Even hardcore libertarians acknowledge there are 'negative externalities', actions like pollution that harm others, that aren't captured in the monetary costs of transactions. I'm beating up on your analysis because it doesn't help us find a solution. The libertarian approach is inadequate, since after-the-fact litigation is obviously no deterrent. On the other end of the spectrum it's clear from the article that the Nigerian government is acting in the elite's interests by protecting illegal refineries so they can benefit from the profits, so it seems unlikely they can act as effective regulators. Should we boycott Shell? Would a Chinese oil company just take over if they pulled out? I don't have the answers, but I know to find them we have to wrestle with the evidence, not waste our energies attacking strawman arguments.
clammer 16y ago
False. Capitalism features property rights. Unless the oil company owns all the polluted property, they are liable for the damage to the property of others (at least under a capitalist system). The problem: Nigeria is a corrupt third world country. It has nothing to do with capitalism.
- sophacles 16y ago
  False, under capitalism corporations have limited liability, and the ability to own other corporations. All liability will be handed to a wholly owned, but separate corporation, which will go bankrupt at the first sign of a lawsuit. No one can be held accountable because "thats capitalism, its a shame that bad stuff occurred, but whatcha gonna do?". Further, it is not a result of corrupt government, it is a result of corporations being allowed to have more power than those who enforce the property rights that you claim would fix things. Last time anyone tried to stop an oil company in nigeria, the government had a choice of ceasing to exist, or helping the giant company. Had another country done this, such would be declared a belligerent act. Finally, regarding the BP thing this is being compared to: Do you think that BP will ever be held accountable fully for the economic damage it has done? The fishing industry will not be compensated every year by BP. Should anyone try to hold them accountable like that, they will bust out the "this is so unfair, it must be unconstitutional, how could we, an oil company, be held responsible for a bad fishing day. Communism!" rhetoric, and those on the damaged end will be left high and dry. Fortunately tho, we'll be told "capitalism works just like you think it should" and you can go put your head back in the sand.
  - clammer 16y ago
    And here we go, more people blaming a system of private enterprise when government fails them...so the solution must be more government, right? Because the government failed, we must need more of it. Sure, that makes sense. >all liability will be handed to a wholly owned, but separate corporation, which will go bankrupt at the first sign of a lawsuit So, if BP was a sole proprietor owned by Bill Gates this would somehow be better. You don't think Bill Gates could go bankrupt? No, you probably don't like any form of private business. It's not just big bad corporations. Sorry for make assumptions about what system you're advocating, but you're not really stating an alternative. What type of benevolent (bankrupt proof) organizational structure should drill for oil? The only think I can think of is the government. Therefore, you're proposing state controlled oil production. In this case, it would somehow be magically cleaner and less corrupt? Reality says otherwise.
- hyperbovine 16y ago
  The problem: Nigeria is a corrupt third world country. It has nothing to do with capitalism. Hah. On an internet filled with naive, uninformed assertions, this is a true standout. Virtually every defining moment in the history of that unfortunate country can be traced back to the meddling of Western capitalists looking to make a buck. It starts with slavery and ends with oil, with a healthy dose of British colonialism in the middle. Their dysfunctional system of government, permanent underclass, environmental destruction--it has _everything_ to do with capitalism. Put down the Milton Friedman koolaid and dig deeper.
  - clammer 16y ago
    So corruption doesn't happen in communist countries? And communist countries never attempt to meddle in the affairs of others? There was nothing naive about my comment, as much as you made naive assumptions about my comment. My point is: Capitalism != mercantilism. Capitalism != corruption. I would never dispute that much of the underdevelopment of the middle east and africa isn't due to meddling by foreign counties (though, not just western). However, corruption has more to do with culture than economic structure. Why do people pervert what capitalism is just so they can tear it down?

tlack 16y ago

How are the plants not dead in the first photo? Small bushes like that would die immediately in such oily muck I'd expect.

whyenot 16y ago

In the US, when an oil company screws up, they are liable for billions of dollars and then end up on the hot seat in front of the US Congress. But, much of the oil we use in the US comes from places where there is little if any regulation and oversight. You could just as easily exchange Nigeria with Ecuador, Peru or Indonesia. It's a little frustrating how our concern for the environment sometimes seems to end at the US border.