[SK in CV]

[quote=mike92104]

[quote=Eugene]
Or is there some counterintuitive mechanism that will make companies like BP regulate themselves if the government regulation goes away?[/quote]

I think it looks pretty damn bad when you dump a bunch of oil into the gulf, and that your sales will take a hit. Not to mention the huge cleanup costs. It’s much cheaper and better PR to prevent spills.

Also remember that Libertarianism isn’t anarchy.[/quote]

I’m not sure what your response has to do with the quoted text. The spill was bad for BP. Regardless of regulations. The question is which would have been more likely to prevent it: More and/or better government regulation or less?

[SK in CV]

[quote=mike92104]

[quote=Eugene]
Or is there some counterintuitive mechanism that will make companies like BP regulate themselves if the government regulation goes away?[/quote]

I think it looks pretty damn bad when you dump a bunch of oil into the gulf, and that your sales will take a hit. Not to mention the huge cleanup costs. It’s much cheaper and better PR to prevent spills.

Also remember that Libertarianism isn’t anarchy.[/quote]

I’m not sure what your response has to do with the quoted text. The spill was bad for BP. Regardless of regulations. The question is which would have been more likely to prevent it: More and/or better government regulation or less?

[SK in CV]

[quote=mike92104]

[quote=Eugene]
Or is there some counterintuitive mechanism that will make companies like BP regulate themselves if the government regulation goes away?[/quote]

I think it looks pretty damn bad when you dump a bunch of oil into the gulf, and that your sales will take a hit. Not to mention the huge cleanup costs. It’s much cheaper and better PR to prevent spills.

Also remember that Libertarianism isn’t anarchy.[/quote]

I’m not sure what your response has to do with the quoted text. The spill was bad for BP. Regardless of regulations. The question is which would have been more likely to prevent it: More and/or better government regulation or less?

[SK in CV]

[quote=mike92104]

[quote=Eugene]
Or is there some counterintuitive mechanism that will make companies like BP regulate themselves if the government regulation goes away?[/quote]

I think it looks pretty damn bad when you dump a bunch of oil into the gulf, and that your sales will take a hit. Not to mention the huge cleanup costs. It’s much cheaper and better PR to prevent spills.

Also remember that Libertarianism isn’t anarchy.[/quote]

I’m not sure what your response has to do with the quoted text. The spill was bad for BP. Regardless of regulations. The question is which would have been more likely to prevent it: More and/or better government regulation or less?

[SK in CV]

And one more thing.

[quote=greekfire]
You can’t imply that there should be more government intervention in private business and at the same time defend the government for incompetence when they say they are on top of things. You can’t have it both ways.

[/quote]

It’s just the opposite. You can’t imply there should be less government regulation of business and then complain when that lack of regulation may have caused a catastrophe and the government can’t fix it. THAT is having it both ways.

[SK in CV]

And one more thing.

[quote=greekfire]
You can’t imply that there should be more government intervention in private business and at the same time defend the government for incompetence when they say they are on top of things. You can’t have it both ways.

[/quote]

It’s just the opposite. You can’t imply there should be less government regulation of business and then complain when that lack of regulation may have caused a catastrophe and the government can’t fix it. THAT is having it both ways.

[SK in CV]

And one more thing.

[quote=greekfire]
You can’t imply that there should be more government intervention in private business and at the same time defend the government for incompetence when they say they are on top of things. You can’t have it both ways.

[/quote]

It’s just the opposite. You can’t imply there should be less government regulation of business and then complain when that lack of regulation may have caused a catastrophe and the government can’t fix it. THAT is having it both ways.

[SK in CV]

And one more thing.

[quote=greekfire]
You can’t imply that there should be more government intervention in private business and at the same time defend the government for incompetence when they say they are on top of things. You can’t have it both ways.

[/quote]

It’s just the opposite. You can’t imply there should be less government regulation of business and then complain when that lack of regulation may have caused a catastrophe and the government can’t fix it. THAT is having it both ways.

[SK in CV]

And one more thing.

[quote=greekfire]
You can’t imply that there should be more government intervention in private business and at the same time defend the government for incompetence when they say they are on top of things. You can’t have it both ways.

[/quote]

It’s just the opposite. You can’t imply there should be less government regulation of business and then complain when that lack of regulation may have caused a catastrophe and the government can’t fix it. THAT is having it both ways.

[SK in CV]

[quote=greekfire]
You can’t imply that there should be more government intervention in private business and at the same time defend the government for incompetence when they say they are on top of things. You can’t have it both ways.
[/quote]

I’m reasonably sure no one has attempted to have it both ways. This disaster is the perfect example of the shortcomings of libertarian free market captialism. (As if the near collapse of the credit/financial markets 20 months ago wasn’t sufficient evidence.) The market does not take care of itself. The market will neither protect irreplaceable resources, nor repair them when damage is done. It has nothing to do with post-crisis managment or mismanagement.

If there had been no government involvement with this oil spill, would BP have acted any differently? I suspect so. It still would not have been fixed, but don’t suspect they would have spent the 10’s of millions on their attempts to mitigate the damage. There is no free market incentive for them to do that.

The government didn’t cause this disaster. The argument can be made that more government involvement possibly could have prevented it. Government involvement hasn’t delayed the end of the crisis. I suspect that both BP and the federal government are doing all they can to fix it. You argue that the government is incompetent, yet they neither caused the crisis nor are they in charge of fixing it, only pressuring BP to continue to seek a solution. The “incompetent” label is surely misdirected.

[SK in CV]

[quote=greekfire]
You can’t imply that there should be more government intervention in private business and at the same time defend the government for incompetence when they say they are on top of things. You can’t have it both ways.
[/quote]

I’m reasonably sure no one has attempted to have it both ways. This disaster is the perfect example of the shortcomings of libertarian free market captialism. (As if the near collapse of the credit/financial markets 20 months ago wasn’t sufficient evidence.) The market does not take care of itself. The market will neither protect irreplaceable resources, nor repair them when damage is done. It has nothing to do with post-crisis managment or mismanagement.

If there had been no government involvement with this oil spill, would BP have acted any differently? I suspect so. It still would not have been fixed, but don’t suspect they would have spent the 10’s of millions on their attempts to mitigate the damage. There is no free market incentive for them to do that.

The government didn’t cause this disaster. The argument can be made that more government involvement possibly could have prevented it. Government involvement hasn’t delayed the end of the crisis. I suspect that both BP and the federal government are doing all they can to fix it. You argue that the government is incompetent, yet they neither caused the crisis nor are they in charge of fixing it, only pressuring BP to continue to seek a solution. The “incompetent” label is surely misdirected.

[SK in CV]

[quote=greekfire]
You can’t imply that there should be more government intervention in private business and at the same time defend the government for incompetence when they say they are on top of things. You can’t have it both ways.
[/quote]

I’m reasonably sure no one has attempted to have it both ways. This disaster is the perfect example of the shortcomings of libertarian free market captialism. (As if the near collapse of the credit/financial markets 20 months ago wasn’t sufficient evidence.) The market does not take care of itself. The market will neither protect irreplaceable resources, nor repair them when damage is done. It has nothing to do with post-crisis managment or mismanagement.

If there had been no government involvement with this oil spill, would BP have acted any differently? I suspect so. It still would not have been fixed, but don’t suspect they would have spent the 10’s of millions on their attempts to mitigate the damage. There is no free market incentive for them to do that.

The government didn’t cause this disaster. The argument can be made that more government involvement possibly could have prevented it. Government involvement hasn’t delayed the end of the crisis. I suspect that both BP and the federal government are doing all they can to fix it. You argue that the government is incompetent, yet they neither caused the crisis nor are they in charge of fixing it, only pressuring BP to continue to seek a solution. The “incompetent” label is surely misdirected.

[SK in CV]

[quote=greekfire]
You can’t imply that there should be more government intervention in private business and at the same time defend the government for incompetence when they say they are on top of things. You can’t have it both ways.
[/quote]

I’m reasonably sure no one has attempted to have it both ways. This disaster is the perfect example of the shortcomings of libertarian free market captialism. (As if the near collapse of the credit/financial markets 20 months ago wasn’t sufficient evidence.) The market does not take care of itself. The market will neither protect irreplaceable resources, nor repair them when damage is done. It has nothing to do with post-crisis managment or mismanagement.

If there had been no government involvement with this oil spill, would BP have acted any differently? I suspect so. It still would not have been fixed, but don’t suspect they would have spent the 10’s of millions on their attempts to mitigate the damage. There is no free market incentive for them to do that.

The government didn’t cause this disaster. The argument can be made that more government involvement possibly could have prevented it. Government involvement hasn’t delayed the end of the crisis. I suspect that both BP and the federal government are doing all they can to fix it. You argue that the government is incompetent, yet they neither caused the crisis nor are they in charge of fixing it, only pressuring BP to continue to seek a solution. The “incompetent” label is surely misdirected.

[SK in CV]

[quote=greekfire]
You can’t imply that there should be more government intervention in private business and at the same time defend the government for incompetence when they say they are on top of things. You can’t have it both ways.
[/quote]

I’m reasonably sure no one has attempted to have it both ways. This disaster is the perfect example of the shortcomings of libertarian free market captialism. (As if the near collapse of the credit/financial markets 20 months ago wasn’t sufficient evidence.) The market does not take care of itself. The market will neither protect irreplaceable resources, nor repair them when damage is done. It has nothing to do with post-crisis managment or mismanagement.

If there had been no government involvement with this oil spill, would BP have acted any differently? I suspect so. It still would not have been fixed, but don’t suspect they would have spent the 10’s of millions on their attempts to mitigate the damage. There is no free market incentive for them to do that.

The government didn’t cause this disaster. The argument can be made that more government involvement possibly could have prevented it. Government involvement hasn’t delayed the end of the crisis. I suspect that both BP and the federal government are doing all they can to fix it. You argue that the government is incompetent, yet they neither caused the crisis nor are they in charge of fixing it, only pressuring BP to continue to seek a solution. The “incompetent” label is surely misdirected.

[SK in CV]

Brian, I’m gonna add just a couple more cents here.

[quote=DWCAP]
I like the Bay retriever idea. You may be able to find a cross too. Often the best dogs are not pure breeds.

Never cared for standard poodles myslef, but that is just me.

[/quote]

I fully understand the attraction of a pure bred dog. I have one myself. (the other one is a mixed rescue from the mean streets of Rosarito.)Seriously consider a mutt, mixed or cross breed. For a whole lot of reasons. It probably won’t be the most handsome dog, but it is likely to be healthier. My experience is that they also tend to be easier to train, not sure why but it seems the bad instincts tend to disappear. Never had an experience where a dog had all the bad traits of multiple breeds. Please consider a shelter dog. Usually lots to choose from.

You might also consider getting a new dog before the old one is through. They’re all different, but a lot of old dogs get new life when another dog comes into the household. If it’s a consideration, test drive it. Make sure the old one doesn’t hate the idea. Specially if it’s a puppy. Some old dogs really take to training the new kid. Others seem to hate it. If he hates it, let him live out his life with just the two of you.

Also, never ever ever get a puppy that’s been weaned before 8 weeks. I can give you a long list of probable behavior problems with puppies weaned too young.

And the poodle thing was just a joke. Poodle people will hate me, but I don’t really even consider them dogs.

[Author]

Posts