8 replies to this topic

[RighteousReason]

http://www.realclear...fect_98505.html

June 9, 2010
No Thomas Frank, Capitalism Is Perfect
By Wendy Milling

To be perfect means to meet a given standard flawlessly. The standard of perfection for a politico-economic system is that it be in accordance with the requirements of man's nature. Man is an integrated being of matter and consciousness who exists by the use of his rational faculty. In order to continue existing, he must implement the products of his reasoning in the material realm, organizing things to achieve a material outcome which contributes to his survival. If force is used against this process at any step, that which is needed for his survival cannot come into being.

A concept is therefore needed to denote man's morally and legally sanctioned freedom of action with regard to his use of materials-the concept of property rights. Since politics concerns the nature of government, and the essence of government is force, the full politico-economic application of property rights is a system in which government protects an individual's property rights from violation by others, but does not itself violate them. Capitalism is the politico-economic system of private property rights. It connotes a system whereby property rights (and hence, the other rights) are respected objectively and completely.

Capitalism is perfect.

Assaults on capitalism are rooted in a crybaby metaphysics, and they rely on obfuscations, equivocations, and an attitude of militant evasion. One trick is to make inappropriate demands of capitalism, then stomp and pout and denounce capitalism when those demands are not met.

One of the irrational demands made on capitalism is to provide infinite abundance, usually in some particular object of the demander's whim. The world has finite resources, and man has limited time and is not omniscient. There cannot be an infinite abundance of anything. This is not a flaw in any proposed politico-economic system (especially capitalism, which provides the greatest abundance of all of them), and in fact has nothing to do with systems qua system at all. It is a feature of reality.

A corollary demand is the erasure of all poverty, suffering, and, by logical extension, inequality among man. Appealing to an irrational sense of guilt, this trick ascribes to political systems an implicit, incompatible mission: Make it so that absolutely everyone is healthy, educated, happy, and has all the resources he wants (or some do-gooder wants for him). It then pronounces capitalism as flawed when such conditions do not materialize. Some degree of economic malady exists and will continue to exist under any system, including capitalism. It is not the responsibility of capitalism to eliminate, and it is not a feature of capitalism, but of a special facet of reality: Man's free will.

Individuals must perform mental and physical work in order to attain material values, but this requires an act of free will. The existence of free will means that some people will choose to have a different value system, and some will choose not to have values at all. In a pure capitalist system, the opportunity to achieve whatever prosperity level desired is available to everyone.

Some people will completely reject it. They will choose to drug themselves into oblivion, live on the streets, prostitute, panhandle, or otherwise live degenerately. Others will choose to live like pigs, expecting great social rewards for minimal productive work or no work at all. They will choose to do these things even though they could choose to live virtuous lives and become fabulously wealthy, and some will reject it so totally, they will allow themselves to die before they exert themselves for any sustained period of time. For whatever reason, they simply do not want to put forth the effort needed to attain the level of material security the do-gooders think they should have.

It is not the proper purpose or function of a politico-economic system to override the free will of man, and any attempt to do so is immoral. It would be an attempt to violate the rights of the virtuous for the sake of those who reject virtue, because in reality, the only way to start equalizing results for people who have chosen to reject effort is to rob from those who have not. To insist that people who demonstrate no commitment to achieving material values, value the materials anyway-and then blame capitalism for their not having them-is to border on the psychotic.

Do not offer that old tripe about innocent children being hurt; there are already laws against child abuse, neglect, and endangerment. Having to live in relative poverty is not a violation of their rights (unless their parents' impoverishment was caused by stock market crashes, unemployment, or other conditions brought on by government, but statists are singularly unconcerned with these kinds of victims).

When the enemies of capitalism are not blaming it for sins of omission, they are blaming it for sins of commission, hanging some ugly idea on capitalism like a rotten barnacle and hoping that observers cannot tell from whence the rot came. The Wall Street Journal's Thomas Frank challenges the advocates of laissez-faire to defend their philosophy in light of the BP oil spill. "But what say the tea partiers today? Who will step forward now and demand that the ‘energy market' be rescued from regulatory bondage?" he asks with a sneer and an ideological death wish.

Note the subtle trick of his op-ed: He attempts to smuggle in an equivocation between the concept of laissez-faire and the concept of industry. The oil spill was an industrial accident. It is unrelated to laissez-faire or any type of political system. Accidents occur in all political systems, and although they are lamentable, they are not any sort of threat to civilization, and they are irrelevant to the choice of political systems. (And if they were relevant, then it is clear which system would be the winner. Observe that the more capitalist the country, the cleaner and safer it is, and the more statist the country, the worse its physical and environmental conditions. The Soviet Union left itself and its satellites toxic wastelands).

Mr. Frank seems to count on the reader to see that BP is a privately owned company and, in the confusion, to stick a mental post-it note labeled "disastrous oil spill" on the concept of laissez-faire. If the BP oil spill is to be a cause célèbre for statists, then let us inquire into the spill and the role of the state. After all, the force of his challenge seems to rely on the notion that this spill is particularly devastating and seemingly intractable, beyond the ability of the private sector to handle.

If true, that should be your first clue that that mental post-it note belongs on the concept statism.

Observe that the government, beholden to an insane environmentalist ideology that views nature as an intrinsic value and superior to human beings, forbade oil companies to drill nearer to the coast line where there were shallow waters. In the shallow areas, an oil leak could be directly accessed. Instead, companies were only allowed to drill in areas too deep for current technology to address.

The liability risk in deep waters was too great for the oil companies to accept. This is an example of the inherent safety features in a free market. However, because we need the oil for our economy, politicians had to entice companies to drill there by capping liability limits on accidents, legally shielding them from the consequences of failure they would bear under a capitalist system. It is government that removes the safety controls and engenders unacceptably risky situations.

There is no regulation that can override the reality of a fundamentally flawed set-up like this, which is why the statists do not offer to explain why such regulations were not already in place in one of the most heavily regulated sectors of the economy.

It is also an open question what the actual economic damage will be, what it would be were the federal government not interfering with local authorities' attempts to mitigate the spill, and what adaptations the private sector will make to counter the new adversities.

Thus, if it were not for government interference, there might still have been an accident at some point, but there would have been no "disaster." Statism was the problem, and laissez-faire would have prevented this situation.

The conclusion is obvious. The mixed economy cannot continue. The truth is that all government interferences hurt some in the private sector, and there is a limit to the amount and kind of statist policies that the market can absorb. If America is to survive, we must have a mass repeal of environmental legislation and regulations. We are going to have to get serious about laissez-faire, starting with getting the government out of the way of the energy industry.

Wendy Milling is a contributor to RealClearMarkets

[Mind]

The (current) world runs on oil. Blaming BP for everything and setting them up as a super villain is like hitting your thumb with hammer. BP (and all oil companies) drill because we (all of us) demand it. Governments of the world sanction regulate every bit of it. If anyone is really sincere in their hatred for BP, they should stop using oil and all oil based products. Not willing to live in a cave? Then work on solutions instead of creating villains.

[RighteousReason]

Here I think is the key point being made about the gulf oil spill in particular:

Observe that the government, beholden to an insane environmentalist ideology that views nature as an intrinsic value and superior to human beings, forbade oil companies to drill nearer to the coast line where there were shallow waters. In the shallow areas, an oil leak could be directly accessed. Instead, companies were only allowed to drill in areas too deep for current technology to address.

The liability risk in deep waters was too great for the oil companies to accept. This is an example of the inherent safety features in a free market. However, because we need the oil for our economy, politicians had to entice companies to drill there by capping liability limits on accidents, legally shielding them from the consequences of failure they would bear under a capitalist system. It is government that removes the safety controls and engenders unacceptably risky situations.

And this statement is just priceless:

To insist that people who demonstrate no commitment to achieving material values, value the materials anyway-and then blame capitalism for their not having them-is to border on the psychotic.

Edited by RighteousReason, 12 June 2010 - 05:48 PM.

[bobdrake12]

The (current) world runs on oil. Blaming BP for everything and setting them up as a super villain is like hitting your thumb with hammer. BP (and all oil companies) drill because we (all of us) demand it. Governments of the world sanction regulate every bit of it. If anyone is really sincere in their hatred for BP, they should stop using oil and all oil based products. Not willing to live in a cave? Then work on solutions instead of creating villains.

Interesting point of view, Mind.

And before I continue, I have a fair amount of my investments in oil with some indirect involvement with BP.

Are you aware of the following?:

http://www.politico....0510/36783.html

Obama biggest recipient of BP cash (excerpts)

By ERIKA LOVLEY | 5/5/10 5:05 AM EDT
Updated: 5/5/10 5:37 PM EDT

While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they’ve taken from the oil and gas giant over the years.


BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.


On top of that, the oil giant has spent millions each year on lobbying — including $15.9 million last year alone — as it has tried to influence energy policy.


During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.

http://ac360.blogs.c...-safety-record/

June 11, 2010

BP's Safety Record

Posted: 02:40 PM ET

AC360° Correspondent

Even after more than 50 days of one disturbing detail of lax oversight after another, this new information still stuns.

BP's own auditors and others have found the oil giant's been ignoring its own safety policies for years… this according to an investigation by the non-profit journalism group – ProPublica – and the Washington Post. The report alleges instances of BP intimidating employees who reported problems… and delaying safety checks to reduce costs.

ProPublica, says it obtained a series of internal investigations from a person close to BP who believes the company has not yet done enough to eradicate its shortcomings – investigations that over the past decade warned senior BP managers that the company, according to the post, risked a serious accident if it did not change its ways.


"We found numerous instances where BP was putting production ahead of safety and maintenance inspections." says Ryan Knutson of ProPublica.

Among the most egregious:

A 2001 BP commissioned report noted that workers felt BP had neglected to maintain shut-off valves in Alaska, valves similar to those that could have helped prevent the fire and explosion that occurred on the rig in the gulf.

A document obtained by ProPublica says a 2004 internal investigation found BP cut maintenance costs by using aging equipment. The result? Accidents. Like the 2006 spill in Alaska's Prudhoe Bay. 200,000 gallons lost. It was blamed on an aging, corroded pipeline.

Scott West, a former EPA investigator says, "BP failed to follow industry standard practices on maintaining that pipeline"

Scott West was the EPA criminal investigator who headed up the case against BP after that spill.

He says in 2002, BP's own experts warned that the pipeline needed to be checked but BP had been warned to check the pipeline in 2002... but waited four years to do so.

West goes on to say, "It resulted in the rupture of that pipe, and the large amount of oil coming out onto the frozen tundra."

And there's more:
Four years before that, in 2002, court documents show BP was accused of falsifying inspections of fuel tanks at its Carson refinery near Los Angeles in order to comply with the law. In the end, the company was sued. It settled out of court for more than $80 million dollars, but never admitted guilt.

In march 2005, perhaps the most tragic incident of all… BP's Texas city refinery exploded, killing 15 people. Investigators discovered the company had ignored its own protocols.. the plant warning system failed.

BP pleaded guilty to federal felony charges.. it was hit with a $50 million dollar fine from the EPA.

But apparently not much changed… last year, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration fined BP $87 million dollars for not improving safety at that same Texas plant.

With a history like this, can anyone trust BP? We tried asking the company, but nobody called us back. BP spokesman Toby Odone told the Washington Post that the company has worked to create "responsible operations at every BP operation" and they expect to have it fully implemented by the end of this year. Odone said the notion that BP has ongoing problems addressing worker concerns is "essentially groundless."

"There is a public persona, a portrayal of BP, being a safety first organization," West says, "however, when you talk to the actual workers and contract employees, you find that it is complete smoke and mirrors. When workers bring that to the attention of management or speak out about it, they often find themselves retaliated against."

What angers Scott West most? That BP's still in business – still putting its workers at risk..

"BP just does not seem to get it... or is convinced that the government is not going to take serious action." he says.

It may take the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon, and the deaths of 11 employees, for the EPA to bar BP from any more government contracts something they've been considering for years. Its a move that would cost the company billions, but hardly prevent it from doing business.

Edited by bobdrake12, 13 June 2010 - 05:06 PM.

[bobdrake12]

Here is a very interesting coincidence:

http://www.telegraph...-oil-spill.html

BP chief Tony Hayward sold shares weeks before oil spill (excerpts)

The chief executive of BP sold £1.4 million of his shares in the fuel giant weeks before the Gulf of Mexico oil spill caused its value to collapse.

By Jon Swaine and Robert Winnett
Published: 12:10AM BST 05 Jun 2010

Tony Hayward cashed in about a third of his holding in the company one month before a well on the Deepwater Horizon rig burst, causing an environmental disaster.

Mr Hayward, whose pay package is £4 million a year, then paid off the mortgage on his family’s mansion in Kent, which is estimated to be valued at more than £1.2 million

There is no suggestion that he acted improperly or had prior knowledge that the company was to face the biggest setback in its history.

http://rawstory.com/...llion-bp-stock/

Goldman Sachs sold $250 million of BP stock before spill (excerpts)

By John Byrne
Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010 -- 10:12 am

Firm's stock sale nearly twice as large as any other institution; Represented 44 percent of total BP investment

The brokerage firm that's faced the most scrutiny from regulators in the past year over the shorting of mortgage related securities seems to have had good timing when it came to something else: the stock of British oil giant BP.

According to regulatory filings, RawStory.com has found that Goldman Sachs sold 4,680,822 shares of BP in the first quarter of 2010. Goldman's sales were the largest of any firm during that time. Goldman would have pocketed slightly more than $266 million if their holdings were sold at the average price of BP's stock during the quarter.

[maxwatt]

Here I think is the key point being made about the gulf oil spill in particular:

Observe that the government, beholden to an insane environmentalist ideology that views nature as an intrinsic value and superior to human beings, forbade oil companies to drill nearer to the coast line where there were shallow waters. In the shallow areas, an oil leak could be directly accessed. Instead, companies were only allowed to drill in areas too deep for current technology to address.

The liability risk in deep waters was too great for the oil companies to accept. This is an example of the inherent safety features in a free market. However, because we need the oil for our economy, politicians had to entice companies to drill there by capping liability limits on accidents, legally shielding them from the consequences of failure they would bear under a capitalist system. It is government that removes the safety controls and engenders unacceptably risky situations.

...

Who are you quoting?

Isn't this a bit like the drunk who lives in a dry town and gets into an automobile accident blaming the baptists and the town government for forcing him to drive out of town to drink?

(And didn't the oil companies lobby for the liability caps before they would drill? And didn't they buy as many cnressmen as they needed to be sure they got them?)

Edited by maxwatt, 14 June 2010 - 07:16 PM.

[RighteousReason]

[niner]

xkcd rescues a comical thread.

[niner]

The (current) world runs on oil. Blaming BP for everything and setting them up as a super villain is like hitting your thumb with hammer. BP (and all oil companies) drill because we (all of us) demand it. Governments of the world sanction regulate every bit of it. If anyone is really sincere in their hatred for BP, they should stop using oil and all oil based products. Not willing to live in a cave? Then work on solutions instead of creating villains.

No one is complaining about Exxon or Conoco-Phillips. The problem isn't the oil industry, it is really starting to appear to be a specific problem with BP. OSHA statistics show BP ran up 760 "egregious, willful" safety violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo had two and Exxon had one comparable citation. I think when the full story of this disaster emerges, BP is going to come out of it looking like hell. Sometimes when people criticize a corporation, it's for good reason.