Consequential damages are a basic aspect of tort claims. I’m not sure what Atlas Shrugged has to do with what I said.
What I find fascinating is that a common conservative argument against regulation is that no company would be stupid enough to take such risks that there would be a disaster, big enough so that there would be civil and criminal charges large enough to destroy the company. Besides the several counter-examples to this theory we have seen recently, now we also see Republicans objecting to BP paying for what they did. Can you say moral hazard, folks? If they get let off with a $5 billion slap on the wrist, what is there to keep other companies from taking even bigger risks? I think we see that the so-called philosophy is all about loving corporations, right or wrong.
Back to the OP - I suspect another problem is that when the fishermen get their money relatively quickly, they will tend to thank Obama for standing up for them, and we can’t have that, can we? It is also an example of government doing something right, equally horrible. So I suspect this enters into it also.
BTW, the escrow account reduces the uncertainty about the impact on the bottom line for BP, since it increases the chances that the final payment will be negotiated and not come from a long and dragged out court battle. Wall Street hates uncertainty, so I’m not surprised if their stock price went up as mentioned.
I see your point. But, BP was doing just this before the creation of this fund. How would having the government take over this role benefit BP? Also, as Scylla points out, the money for the fund will be collected over years which may do little for those suffering now. Again, I’m not arguing against the creation of this fund and don’t know who can handle the distribution of the money in a better way. I just don’t see the benefit for BP and wonder if the Obama administration threatened BP with criminal action to set up this fund.
Moral hazards are for the little people.
-Joe
[quote=“MOIDALIZE, post:141, topic:543634”]
ETA: nevermind
In your example, the cost of losing your house due to not paying your mortgage would not be covered. The costs associated with your loss of income would.
I find it equally interesting that regulation and inspection by MMS failed to catch the problem. What is the point of regulation and inspections if they do not prevent companies like BP from cutting corners and taking these kinds of risks?
And how did you conclude that Republicans object to BP paying for what they did? This is disingenuous at best. Objecting to the administration strong-arming BP (if this is, indeed, what happened) into setting up a fund controlled by a third party is a far cry from objecting to BP paying for what they did.
BP may be on the hook for the cost of losing the house- that is, fees, costs and interest, most of which will be offset against the lost earnings anyway. Not for the cost of a new house.
In the absence of any evidence at all…
Concerned, obviously. Did it make any difference?
As I, myself, have stated repeatedly. Anything else?
… you can say any damn thing you like.
Is that what you meant?
Essentially. I mean, why stop with threats of criminal prosecution? How do we know Obama didn’t threaten to send a carrier battle group to sink Tony Hayward’s yacht?
Well, if Obama sent Holder out making statements to that effect then I don’t think it would be unreasonable to assume Obama might have threatened to sink Hayward’s yacht if BP did not agree to set up the fund.
Obviously because the Republicans think the TAXPAYER and those individuals and small businesses damaged by BP’s activities should foot the bill, as usual.
Corporations should be as free as possible from government regulation and accountability, shift their liabilities to the general public (taxes, clean-ups, reparations) and only GET money from the government/public, not GIVE it.
That’s what it comes down to, though they spin it as “oppressive big government” persecuting free enterprise/business and “redistributing wealth”.
Like trying to swallow a piano sideways, but a lot of people somehow do.
I heard he was going to have the Harlem Globetrotters handle Hayward’s balls, such as it is.
-Joe
What BP did was offer cleanup jobs to those whose careers had been killed by the spill. They would get 5 thou ,a job for a short time, and would sign a paper saying they would not sue for more later. BP had reps all over the gulf states doing that ,right after the spill. When it was reported in the news, they backed off.
Do you have a cite for that? Everything I read says BP started sending out money to many who made claims. Furthermore, many of the locals were upset that BP didn’t hire more locals to aid in the cleanup.
That the current administration didn’t fire just about everyone in MMS is a valid complaint. They seem to have paid more attention on the SEC. But the real problem was a Republican administration who didn’t buy into the very concept of regulation, and who hired hacks and cronies like those who were in MMS and those who ignored Madoff. Any fan of massive deregulation, Rep or Dem, deserves the blame. Clinton too. That it is possible to cripple regulatory agencies does not invalidate the benefits of regulation - it just means we should be careful not to let deregulators anywhere near the reins of power.
So, they owe the money, but they shouldn’t have to pay it right now, or they should be able to start stonewalling after the pressure is off them, or Obama was too rough on them?
It seems that even Barton wasn’t politically stupid enough to say that BP shouldn’t pay. However having them pay fully only after a protracted legal battle is pretty close to the same thing. The objection to people who need the money now getting it because Obama may not have asked nicely enough is beyond me. I doubt if they would object to the police using “strongarm” tactics when trying to get information from a suspect - and BP has hurt a lot more people than your average robber. And of course having the funds go into escrow controlled by a trusted third party is so obviously the thing to do that the only cause for objection I see is pure naysaying.
You can bitch and moan about deregulation all you want but it does not change the fact that the drilling industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries we have. Add to that the fact that the current administration appointed Salazar at Interior and Birnbaum at MMS and had 16 months to figure out what was wrong. You don’t seem to understand that this has nothing to do with deregulation or Republicans, though I’m sure you either really believe that or really wish that it did.
BP was paying claims without any government involvement. The rest of your respnse is speculation. And, yes, you should be concerned if your government decides not to prosecute those responsible at BP, or decides to help them remain solvent, in exchange for paying off the victims the way the government wants them to.
Also, I see you’ve backed off the absurd comment that Republicans are opposed to BP paying what it owes.
Theoretically the most regulated, sure. But I doubt any industry where the regulators are sleeping with the regulated can be said to be highly regulated in truth. BP clearly had major safety problems. In an environment where they could be sure that cutting corners would get a slap on the wrist at best, they save money by cutting corners. That doesn’t mean all drillers cut corners, but those who wish to think they can do it without penalty.
That BP is paying now when the news media and the public have their attention focused on them is hardly a guarantee that they will keep paying a year from now when the leak is capped, the gulf looks better, but the shrimpers are still out of work. Plus, if BP were indeed such nice guys, they’d agree in a second to the escrow account, no strong arming necessary. I don’t think there is any question that the bill is going to be bigger than $20 billion. So what was Barton and the rest squawking about? That they are smart enough not to say now that BP shouldn’t pay doesn’t mean that they think BP should pay the full amount. It would come out as “we don’t want to drive the company into bankruptcy” or “we don’t want to hurt investors” but it will be the same thing.
But my original point is that those who think penalties after the fact will keep companies from screwing up should support maximal penalties (including some strong arming) which is not what we’ve been seeing.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that deregulation is the problem but then complain about inefficiencies and other problems inherent in a large government bureaucracy that is in the business of regulating an industry. So, which is it? What is the real problem? All the regulation in the world doesn’t mean shit if you have one incompetent person who fails to look over the safety proposals or who fails to actually perform an inspection. MMS signed off on the Deepwater Horizon constrution proposal that many experts are now saying was inadequate.
So, you do believe that the administration threatened BP to pony up the $20B. Otherwise they are, according to you, nice guys for agreeing to the escrow account.
Do you think Barton’s statement had anything to do with trying to avoid legal action that would drive BP into bankruptcy? I think you have it backwards. Obama has offered them a lifeline to avoid bankruptcy in exchange for setting up this fund. Barton was rightfully appalled that the administration could get away with threatening a company to part with $20B. Remember that we are a government of laws, not of men.