Pay Baby, Pay! Obama says that BP's going to pick up the tab for the oil spill

other than sleazier than a used carsalesman pawning a yugo off as an escalade, nothing is wrong with it.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I don't think it takes much to reason that what BP was doing was morally bankrupt horseshit.
Click to expand...

wow...another stellar argument

apparently my short little paragraph in favor of has given you fits of consternation such that you can't actually explain your reasons other than...you're a dick, horseshit....:blah:

perhaps you can rationally articulate why
 
NigelTufnel said:
The fund exists so that the cash is available when the shit hits the fan so we don't have to wait around for BP to cut checks. It doesn't exist so that BP never has to pay a penny and doesn't have to pay the fund back for costs incurred.
Click to expand...
Again, from your link:

In exchange for the limits on liability, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 imposed a tax on oil companies, currently 8 cents for every barrel they produce in this country or import.
Click to expand...
 
Nigel I'm going to have to break our turbo-lib bromance if you don't get the first clue about business. It might be morally bankrupt and sleazy but BP has to look out for thier shareholders interest. It's called fiduciary responsibility.
 
Topspin said:
Nigel I'm going to have to break our turbo-lib bromance if you don't get the first clue about business. It might be morally bankrupt and sleazy but BP has to look out for thier shareholders interest. It's called fiduciary responsibility.
Click to expand...


Well, at least we seem to agree that it is morally bankrupt horseshit. And I'm sure I could spin an argument that the goodwill attendant to not acting like morally bankrupt assholes can work to the long-term benefit of shareholders and that acting like morally bankrupt assholes can indeed be bad for business.
 
NigelTufnel said:
My understanding is that the law limits liability for economic damages (the fishing industry is fucked), not for costs of cleaning up the mess.
Click to expand...

what say you regarding the limitation section i quoted from the Act?

also, i'm still waiting for an articulate reason why the offer of 5K is morally bankrupt....
 
Yurt said:
what say you regarding the limitation section i quoted from the Act?
Click to expand...

Nothing. Why?

Yurt said:
also, i'm still waiting for an articulate reason why the offer of 5K is morally bankrupt....
Click to expand...

It is morally bankrupt because BP put these people in the position of having zero economic security by destroying their means of earning a living for the foreseeable future and before the oil leak has even been stopped (or even slowed for that matter) and the actual extent of damage being determinable (other than "totally fucked") their lawyers are on the ground taking advantage of the economic insecurity that BP itself created by offering a measly $5,000 for a full release of BP. That's why it's morally bankrupt.
 
OTE=NigelTufnel;644757]Nothing. Why?
Click to expand...

because the way i read it, it limits clean up costs in certain instances.

It is morally bankrupt because BP put these people in the position of having zero economic security by destroying their means of earning a living for the foreseeable future and before the oil leak has even been stopped (or even slowed for that matter) and the actual extent of damage being determinable (other than "totally fucked") their lawyers are on the ground taking advantage of the economic insecurity that BP itself created by offering a measly $5,000 for a full release of BP. That's why it's morally bankrupt.
Click to expand...

1. what do morals have to do with settling a case where both parties agree to the settlement?

2. did BP put them in this situation, or was it a TP?

3. again, if both parties, willingly and knowingly enter into a settlement agreement, why is that morally bankrupt? what if someon needs the 5K right now, can't wait? a settlement is virtually always BOTH parties compromising. BP is compromising by giving money now, the other party is compromising by taking potentially less dollars in order to have the money now.

has nothing to do with morals. as i said, if the letter unequivocally informs them to seek independent counsel, then all is fair. i don't understand why you can't let people make decisions on their own.
 
Yurt said:
because the way i read it, it limits clean up costs in certain instances.
Click to expand...

The law has a lot more to it than what you posted.

Yurt said:
1. what do morals have to do with settling a case where both parties agree to the settlement?

2. did BP put them in this situation, or was it a TP?

3. again, if both parties, willingly and knowingly enter into a settlement agreement, why is that morally bankrupt? what if someon needs the 5K right now, can't wait? a settlement is virtually always BOTH parties compromising. BP is compromising by giving money now, the other party is compromising by taking potentially less dollars in order to have the money now.

has nothing to do with morals. as i said, if the letter unequivocally informs them to seek independent counsel, then all is fair. i don't understand why you can't let people make decisions on their own.
Click to expand...


I think it is morally bankrupt for the reasons I described. It may be perfectly legally, but that doesn't make it morally right.

And let me just add that the fiction that people in severe economic distress caused by the other party to a settlement agreement are acting of their own free will is total bullshit. I imagine a decent argument could be made that these settlements are being entered into under duress caused by BP and that, as a result, they are unenforceable. And there is a pretty huge information asymmetry going on here such that I don't think it at all a stretch for these settlements to be void as unconscionable.
 
TE=NigelTufnel;644769]The law has a lot more to it than what you posted.
Click to expand...

ok...then post up what you have that counters what i posted from the Act itself.

I think it is morally bankrupt for the reasons I described. It may be perfectly legally, but that doesn't make it morally right.
Click to expand...

what reasons? that they should have to pay more? again, it is their choice, they knowingly and willingly enter into said settlement. who are you to judge their choice?

And let me just add that the fiction that people in severe economic distress caused by the other party to a settlement agreement are acting of their own free will is total bullshit. I imagine a decent argument could be made that these settlements are being entered into under duress caused by BP and that, as a result, they are unenforceable. And there is a pretty huge information asymmetry going on here such that I don't think it at all a stretch for these settlements to be void as unconscionable.
Click to expand...

that is the main argument against such settlement agreements. that is why they need or should have a clear statement to seek independent counsel and clearly explain what rights you are giving away. i know people who have signed settlement agreements that i though were complete bullshit. first, they caused the attorney to take far less fees than worthwhile to take the case to is rightful conclusion, however, the client is the boss. same thing here.

IMO, what is likely to happen is that this will turn into a class action where the attorneys make millions and the class claimants make shit. i wouldn't be surprised if this $5K was more than they would see from a class action. tell me, how long did the settlements take from the valdez? and how much did they get after their YEARS long wait and how much of that can be reduced using a present value formula?

think about nigel.....it could be over a decade until anyone sees money
 
Yurt said:
ok...then post up what you have that counters what i posted from the Act itself.
Click to expand...

You can find the bill on your own. The portion that you posted isn't germane to what I was discussing.



Yurt said:
what reasons? that they should have to pay more? again, it is their choice, they knowingly and willingly enter into said settlement. who are you to judge their choice?

that is the main argument against such settlement agreements. that is why they need or should have a clear statement to seek independent counsel and clearly explain what rights you are giving away. i know people who have signed settlement agreements that i though were complete bullshit. first, they caused the attorney to take far less fees than worthwhile to take the case to is rightful conclusion, however, the client is the boss. same thing here.

IMO, what is likely to happen is that this will turn into a class action where the attorneys make millions and the class claimants make shit. i wouldn't be surprised if this $5K was more than they would see from a class action. tell me, how long did the settlements take from the valdez? and how much did they get after their YEARS long wait and how much of that can be reduced using a present value formula?

think about nigel.....it could be over a decade until anyone sees money
Click to expand...


Again, you seem to be focusing on the question of whether what BP was doing was legal. That may be an interesting question to ponder, but it is an entirely separate question from whether what BP was doing was morally reprehensible. Frankly, if you don't think it's morally reprehensible you really ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and try to figure out how you got to where you are, because anyone with a single shred of moral fiber would be a little put off by the whole thing.
 
UOTE=NigelTufnel;644823]You can find the bill on your own. The portion that you posted isn't germane to what I was discussing.
Click to expand...

no nigel....you made a claim contrary to mine. i provided the law and the direct cites. you apparently believe there is some other "bill" that i must find on my own...apparently you can't actually discuss the ACT, so you talk about this "bill".....



Again, you seem to be focusing on the question of whether what BP was doing was legal. That may be an interesting question to ponder, but it is an entirely separate question from whether what BP was doing was morally reprehensible. .
Click to expand...

"legal".....please point out where i have made that argument....please point out where i have said "legal".....

Frankly, if you don't think it's morally reprehensible you really ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and try to figure out how you got to where you are, because anyone with a single shred of moral fiber would be a little put off by the whole thing
Click to expand...

really.....thats it? you haven't actually articulated one thought in this thread. i can make the same argument right back at you. i expected better of you nigel.
 
Yurt said:
no nigel....you made a claim contrary to mine. i provided the law and the direct cites. you apparently believe there is some other "bill" that i must find on my own...apparently you can't actually discuss the ACT, so you talk about this "bill".....
Click to expand...

Here:

(a) GENERAL RULE- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the total of the liability of a responsible party under section 1002 and any removal costs incurred by, or on behalf of, the responsible party, with respect to each incident shall not exceed--

(1) for a tank vessel, the greater of--
(A) $1,200 per gross ton; or
(B)(i) in the case of a vessel greater than 3,000 gross tons, $10,000,000; or

(ii) in the case of a vessel of 3,000 gross tons or less, $2,000,000;

(2) for any other vessel, $600 per gross ton or $500,000, whichever is greater;

(3) for an offshore facility except a deepwater port, the total of all removal costs plus $75,000,000; and

(4) for any onshore facility and a deepwater port, $350,000,000.
Click to expand...



Yurt said:
"legal".....please point out where i have made that argument....please point out where i have said "legal".....
Click to expand...

You can make an argument about the legality of a practice without using the term "legal." You argument focuses exclusively on whether what BP was doing is permissible not whether it is right or moral.

Yurt said:
really.....thats it? you haven't actually articulated one thought in this thread. i can make the same argument right back at you. i expected better of you nigel.
Click to expand...

I've articulated plenty in this thread as to why I find BP's acts morally reprehensible. See post #52 if you need a refresher.
 
nigel...go back and read the LIMITATION section...what you cited was the general rule, the limitation section LIMITS that rule for acts of god etc...

your argument is extremely weak re morals. i've specifically talked about morals and why your point is wrong. apparently its too much for you though...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top