You really ought to read my post again (perhaps slower) and then your response…. Wow, way to fail.

As to the EPA, CG, and other government agencies having every tool possible to address “accidents” like this I ask:
1) who do you think would pay for that?
2) are you actually proposing bigger government agencies in lieu of corporate responsibility?
3) speaking of corporate responsibility, why such a strong desire to give these folks a pass?

Peace.
The Beagle

Oil drilling IS a very HIGH RISK business. And a VITAL national business.

Don’t mix “responsible” and “accountable”.

Yes, BP is “accountable” for the accident. It was their well, their operation. But “responsible”, who knows yet. I’ll wait for the final determination of what caused such an explosion.

You can take over BP and sell it piece by piece at auction and it will never cover the full cost of the clean up. All you’ll end up doing is costing thousands of people their jobs and hurt the national economy and security.

BP shouldn’t be allowed to just shrug their shoulders and move on. But something like this can’t be controlled by a single business. Isn’t that why we have (supposed to have!) an EPA, CG and other government bodies with plans and equipment ready to go??

1) You are right, this is a high risk venture much like many others. If I were to lose money as a shareholder from participating in a high risk venture, it would not be my expectation that the government (taxpayers) would be responsible for my loss.

2) If the business is not responsible for this calamity, and therefore shouldn’t bear the economic burden, then who do you suggest should?

3) Is your change of heart possibly related to your discovery that this “accident” would have been prevented if Bush/Cheney had not reduced required safety measures and required equipment (that arguably would have prevented this “accident”)? I know you are a big fan, but honestly, the Bush dynasty is a gift that just keeps on giving.

4) Finally, there are a number of precedents where corporations are held accountable for their “accidents” even if no corporate wrong doing is proven – mining, air carriers, oil companies (Valdez), etc.. Why do you suggest we treat BP differently?

Peace.
Rick Beagle

If BP followed all the established standards but you don’t like the standards, get them changed. But don’t punish someone for doing what is expected after the fact.

But oil drilling *IS* a risky enterprise. That’s why it’s called an “accident”. Don’t give me the BS that “all accidents are preventable”.

So now we punish the employees??? That’s got to be joke!

Why not just have a class action law suit agains BP shareholders too while you’re at it? Afterall, don’t the shareholders elect the board and officers who make the decisions? So aren’t BP shareholders responsible too? Shouldn’t they be made to pay for the actions of their company as part owners? I’ll be waiting for my court ordered judgement…

I’m sorry, but you missed the point. I notice you conveniently left of the “if they have to” section of my original statement, which was kind of important. I’m not saying they should break up the company out of vengeance, I’m saying if the company doesn’t have enough free cash to pay for the damage they’ve caused then they need to be dissolved instead of let off with a slap on the wrist.

As for “don’t go after the innocent people”, I strongly disagree. Those people made a choice to work in non-renewable fuels. They tacitly encouraged the company to continue in damaging behavior by continuing to work for them, and each and every one of them reaped the benefits of the company ignoring the future negative consequences of their collective actions. You don’t get a free pass to profit from a small group of people acting irresponsibly just because you aren’t in charge of the group, nor do you get a guarantee that your job which depends on pillaging the commons and spewing poisons into the environment will still be around tomorrow just because you put on a sad face and act like you didn’t know what was happening. They chose to work in that industry, their company paid them with money that should have gone to safeguard the environment, and they’ll be out of a job if the resulting damage is too much for the company to absorb. Maybe they’ll think about the long term implications of their choices while they’re in the unemployment line.

That’s a ridiculously bad analogy.

I think BP already agreed to pay – as they should.

“Break up the company and sell off the pieces”
Well this will be a bit counter-productive, don’t you think? You’ll get a lot more money from BP that is working than from sale of the pieces. But people who like to penalize the guilty above all else, don’t really care about these things, right? Let’s get blood – and who cares if hundreds of thousands of innocent employees get hurt in the process – even if it means that you’ll lose.

I am actually quite sick of people who view a company – be it BP or Goldman or any large corporation – as a single person. A privately owned company has an owner that is ultimately responsible; a publicly traded company has a bunch of shareholders who are clueless (for the most part), a board (ditto), a CEO, executives and many employees. Yes, some people in a corporation are responsible; yes some of the executives are responsible and the CEO is ultimately responsible. But the vast majority of employees work in completely different departments and have absolutely no relation or knowledge. So sure, let’s break up the company, fire hundreds and thousands of people; the CEO will nicely retire, guilty parties probably have money too.

How about that – yes BP has to pay. If there is criminal negligence on somebody’s part – persecute this person. If there is simply bad decision/incompetence – let the corporation deal with it by firing the person or whatever. But don’t go after innocent people to prove a point.