Free Market and Oil Leak

[crabyjoe]

How would a free market resolve/clean up the oil leak?

In a free market society would the Fed Govt be intervening with the leak?

Thanks.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

It was gov regulations on exploration that led to the spill in the first place. I'll respond later on free market solutions.

 

[Travlyr]

How would a free market resolve/clean up the oil leak?

In a free market society would the Fed Govt be intervening with the leak?

Thanks.

In a controlled society the Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for protecting the environment. Government = Fail

In a free market, a leak like the one in the Gulf would probably give BP's competition a serious competitive advantage. BP would have to stop polluting the water ASAP probably with funds from disaster insurance. Then they would have to clean-up the mess and pay for the fisherman's and everybody else's lost wages that were affected by the disaster. Then BP's top level executives would have to face a grand jury of their peers to determine what charges may be leveled against them.

 

[crabyjoe]

In a controlled society the Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for protecting the environment. Government = Fail

In a free market, a leak like the one in the Gulf would probably give BP's competition a serious competitive advantage. BP would have to stop polluting the water ASAP probably with funds from disaster insurance. Then they would have to clean-up the mess and pay for the fisherman's and everybody else's lost wages that were affected by the disaster. Then BP's top level executives would have to face a grand jury of their peers to determine what charges may be leveled against them.

Great reply. You've made things more clear in my mind.

One other question: In a free market, would clean up efforts by another private company be allowed?

 

[Travlyr]

Great reply. You've made things more clear in my mind.

One other question: In a free market, would clean up efforts by another private company be allowed?

I would think so. I would imagine a wholehearted effort by every capable person would be implemented to stop the disaster ASAP.

But more importantly, I doubt the leak would ever happen in the first place. The risk of loss would be too great for a company to try drilling for oil a mile under the sea unless they were absolutely certain they would be successful and profitable.

 

[nayjevin]

Could I go clean up the water if I wanted to or find people who can? Cause there are a lot of people who would want to. In a free market, people would just start cleaning it up. Why look to government?

 

[LittleLightShining]

Could I go clean up the water if I wanted to or find people who can? Cause there are a lot of people who would want to. In a free market, people would just start cleaning it up. Why look to government?

Exactly. Like the Matter of Trust folks who are making these hair booms and mats that have been made to wait for approval by BP when they could have just been in those marshes with the mats weeks ago. Ugh.

 

[nayjevin]

Or the kid who had to steal a bus and break through 'official' barricades just to bring water and pick up stranded people during Katrina.

Meanwhile police are on TV complaining about running out of bullets.

 

[Knighted]

But more importantly, I doubt the leak would ever happen in the first place. The risk of loss would be too great for a company to try drilling for oil a mile under the sea unless they were absolutely certain they would be successful and profitable.

I disagree. I think this views places too much faith in the management of corporations. Large companies are run by humans, and humans are not infallible. And for various reasons including economies of scale, it's possible for large corporations to remain dominant despite a great deal of mismanagement and inefficiency existing in their organizations. Businesses go bust every day from taking on risks that go south, just as BP has. There isn't any reason to suggest that a free market would change that. That's the definition of a risk - uncertainty that a venture will pay off. And we all know that people do not always act rationally nor always in their best interests.

This may not be a free market, but a comparable risk of loss for BP still existed in this case, and yet the leak still happened. BP is suffering dearly for this (just look at how BP stock has plummeted), and it's not over yet. A free market does not guarantee that companies cannot make mistakes. It helps ensure that companies which do will pay dearly for it. But mistakes still happen.

This catastrophe is a prime example of one of a handful of cases where government regulation can serve a useful role if it's properly applied. In this case, so much collateral damage takes place during a disaster of this magnitude that it simply makes more sense to put relatively inexpensive safety regulations into place in order to assist in preventing something like this from happening.

 

[YumYum]

I disagree. I think this views places too much faith in the management of corporations. Large companies are run by humans, and humans are not infallible. And for various reasons including economies of scale, it's possible for large corporations to remain dominant despite a great deal of mismanagement and inefficiency existing in their organizations. Businesses go bust every day from taking on risks that go south, just as BP has. There isn't any reason to suggest that a free market would change that. That's the definition of a risk - uncertainty that a venture will pay off. And we all know that people do not always act rationally nor always in their best interests.

This may not be a free market, but a comparable risk of loss for BP still existed in this case, and yet the leak still happened. BP is suffering dearly for this (just look at how BP stock has plummeted), and it's not over yet. A free market does not guarantee that companies cannot make mistakes. It helps ensure that companies which do will pay dearly for it. But mistakes still happen.

This catastrophe is a prime example of one of a handful of cases where government regulation can serve a useful role if it's properly applied. In this case, so much collateral damage takes place during a disaster of this magnitude that it simply makes more sense to put relatively inexpensive safety regulations into place in order to assist in preventing something like this from happening.

Nice reply. There are people who think that in a Free Market everybody will live to be 300 years old, everybody will love one another, everybody will say their prayers at bed time and the dead will rise. Where do they get these fantasies?

 

[swirling_vortex]

The problem lies within the offshore drilling ban. Since the oil companies cannot drill at safer depths, they have to do riskier drilling in deeper waters. Now, if a spill did occur, BP would be 100% liable for all damages, including those who's livelihoods were ruined by BP's oil destroying their private property (assuming the ocean was privatized). Right now, oil companies are only liable up to a certain amount of money which is mandated by a liability cap set by the government.

There's always going to be spills, but free markets would ensure their own safety protocols since a spill would ruin private property. As it stands, the government basically owns the ocean and can lease out parts of it for drilling and fishing and such.

 

[bluemarkets]

I think you also have to look at how we got so 'dependent' on OIL in the first place.

Oil's deep pockets to lobby and laws that favor them by the govt. have kept us stuck with Oil for a long time.

I believe if the gov. hadn't gotten involved with energy, we would have had a viable alternative solution to oil decades ago.

But laws, regulations, & restrictions have kept competition out and Big O at the forefront ... this just encourages them to take more & more risks knowing we 'NEED' oil.

In my eyes gov. is still the enabler here ...

 

[Travlyr]

This catastrophe is a prime example of one of a handful of cases where government regulation can serve a useful role if it's properly applied. In this case, so much collateral damage takes place during a disaster of this magnitude that it simply makes more sense to put relatively inexpensive safety regulations into place in order to assist in preventing something like this from happening.

This catastrophe is a prime example of the failure of government regulations. What is the job of the EPA if not to protect our environment?

What one new law could we pass to prevent this kind of disaster? Whatever it is... let's get our congressmen together and pass it!

 

[cubical]

free market doesn't mean anarchy. The government does need to protect its citizens rights. I believe not living with oil infested waters is a right, both for work, like fishing and for recreation, like going to the beach. For instance you couldn't have a business dumping waste in a river that would only be a problem to people down their rivers(not their consumers). I don't think this incident has much to with with free market/government regulations. It was just an accident(careless or not).

 

[Travlyr]

free market doesn't mean anarchy. The government does need to protect its citizens rights. I believe not living with oil infested waters is a right, both for work, like fishing and for recreation, like going to the beach. For instance you couldn't have a business dumping waste in a river that would only be a problem to people down their rivers(not their consumers). I don't think this incident has much to with with free market/government regulations. It was just an accident(careless or not).

I agree that it was most likely an accident. Should anyone be punished? Who should pay? The taxpayers/consumers are going to pay, and we have already paid billions to the EPA to protect us. But who should pay? Should anybody go to jail?

 

[anaconda]

Could I go clean up the water if I wanted to or find people who can? Cause there are a lot of people who would want to. In a free market, people would just start cleaning it up. Why look to government?

But your volunteering to help clean up the mess should not be construed as a "bailout" for oil spills. Your helping reduces the cost to BP unless you are reimbursed. They need to be held civilly accountable. Or else they will take unwarranted risks in the future thinking that scores of volunteers will "bail them out."

 

[Bman]

Nice reply. There are people who think that in a Free Market everybody will live to be 300 years old, everybody will love one another, everybody will say their prayers at bed time and the dead will rise. Where do they get these fantasies?

Yes. Anyone who thinks free markets are perfection are out of their minds. It's more a realization that shit happens, and government doesn't stop shit from happeing. This oil spill could have just as easily happened in a free market. Of course the liability that BP would face would be monsterous. Also they probably wouldn't be drilling 5,000 feet below the water in a free market, at least not yet when they could hit up the oil fields that are only a couple hundred feet below the surface.

BTW. Gold=1200+

 

[Travlyr]

Yes. Anyone who thinks free markets are perfection are out of their minds. It's more a realization that shit happens, and government doesn't stop shit from happeing. This oil spill could have just as easily happened in a free market. Of course the liability that BP would face would be monsterous. Also they probably wouldn't be drilling 5,000 feet below the water in a free market, at least not yet when they could hit up the oil fields that are only a couple hundred feet below the surface.

BTW. Gold=1200+

What makes you think lassiez-faire free-market capitalism = Failure.

 

[Bman]

What makes you think lassiez-faire free-market capitalism = Failure.

I never said it was a failure. I'm suggesting it doesn't stop bad shit from happening. I'm also suggesting neither does government.

In otherwrods all I'm saying is...




SHIT HAPPENS!!!

 

[Travlyr]

I never said it was a failure. I'm suggesting it doesn't stop bad shit from happening. I'm also suggesting neither does government.

In otherwrods all I'm saying is...




SHIT HAPPENS!!!

Okay. Thanks. Because there does not seem to be much support for a free market in our society.
However, I hold the opinion that laissez-faire free-market capitalism is the best system ever developed for the distribution of goods and services, and it should be allowed.
Perfection and utopia IMO only happen in theory, so while the free market could bring us closer to social responsibility and prosperity, it's not the be all end all.