Is There A BETTER Day to Start the New Politics Thread?

by **TenuredVulture** » Sun May 23, 2010 19:09:35

Werthless wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:Here's an interesting analysis of why Paul and Rococco are wrong from an economic perspective.It's sort of like MAD from the good ol' days.

Perhaps you can explain what he means by this:
Because the incentive worked only because BP expected to get punished whether or not it was an accident. To prevent this, it is the politician’s job to stir up outrage, justified or not, in order to reignite the political will to dole out the punishment.

It was a short column, but this isn't jiving with my instincts leftover from old game theory classes. Besides, punishment for negligence would come through the court system, not through grandstanding politicians stirring up outrage. I dont accept his premise that punishment is more easily doled out if anger is stirred before blame can be placed.

If I turn on my oven, and then it blows up and burns down the neighborhood, I may or not be at fault (and thus liable, both morally and legally). How is is "benefifical," as the author seems to suggest above, to manufacture anger among the neighbor before establishing whether it was an accident (ie. unpreventable) or negligence (ie. gross oversight of risks)? Shouldn't we first establish whether or not I was storing fireworks in the oven, or whether I just had a contractor install the oven?

One of the ideas behind the blog is that people involved in economic transactions may be systematically lying. I think the idea of whether or not punishment is deserved morally, it needs to be doled out to keep the incentives for good behavior (or disincentives for bad behavior) in effect. That is, if you know you'll be punished regardless of whether you're "at fault" then you'll be more careful. Thus, they final sentence, " The blame game is a valuable social convention whether or not you believe there is someone to blame."

The reality here is that BP won't be punished--that is, there aren't going to be any punitive damages. They're at best (and I doubt they'll even do this) be responsible for paying for the damage they do. No one is going to go to jail or anything like that.

Finally, all those who are saying "BP has done nothing wrong" better hope that BP has fucked up in some way. Otherwise, we're done with deep water drilling.

by **Rococo4** » Sun May 23, 2010 20:02:37

drsmooth wrote:
Rococo4 wrote:I'm no Rand Paul fan, I wanted Grayson. But I agree with what he said above.

Accidents happen a lot more to BP than others

uh? what else are you talking about? even if there are examples, i am sure it was an accident anyways.

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Sun May 23, 2010 20:06:40

BP has money. If their stock goes down a few points because they did not take proper precaution which they obviously didn't I have one word for you Rococo and the billionaires who run BP. Waaaaaaaaah.

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Sun May 23, 2010 20:08:21

Excellent point TV. We should be done with drilling off the coast period. It makes no sense. Thank god NJ turned it down.

by **CFP** » Sun May 23, 2010 20:15:57

I'm curious to see where the Sestak/potential Navy job story will head this week. It could turn out to be nothing, but who knows? I think the RNC and other Republicans are going to hammer him on this in November. This was from the W.H. press briefing on Friday:

Q And Sestak -- several months ago, I asked you on February 23rd if you could find out more about what Sestak said about the White House making him an offer to not run. And I know that in March you said whatever conversations have been had are not problematic. But I’m wondering since this has become an issue in Congressman Sestak’s campaign and will likely be -- continue to be an issue, if you could -- if you want to put it to rest right now, what exactly was the conversation?

MR. GIBBS: Jake, I don’t have anything to add to what I said in March.

Q But you never -- you never really explained what the conversation was.

MR. GIBBS: Then I don’t have anything to add today.

Q But if the White House offers a congressman a position in the administration in order to convince that congressman to not run for office --

MR. GIBBS: Jake, I don’t have anything to add to that.

Q But you’ve said a number of times that you would get something for us on that.

MR. GIBBS: And I did. And I gave that answer in March, and I don’t have anything to add to that.

Q But do you really think the American people don’t have a right to know about what exactly the conversation was?

MR. GIBBS: Jake, I don’t have anything to add to what I said in March.

Q Can I ask a quick follow on that, because yesterday Congressman Sestak was on CNN and said, in fact, that he was offered something. He wouldn’t say more, but he said he was offered a job. Would you deny that?

MR. GIBBS: Ed, I don’t have -- I wouldn’t give you --

Q But that’s correct?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t have anything to add to what Jake asked me.

Q So you can’t rule out that a job was offered?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t have anything to add to what I said in March.

Q Is that because the Counsel’s Office said to, Robert?

MR. GIBBS: No.

Q On advice of the Counsel’s Office?

MR. GIBBS: No.

Q Could you seek more information?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t have anything to add to what I said in March.

Q I know you don’t now, but why can’t you -- it sounds like you’re saying you don’t -- you have no interest in getting information.

MR. GIBBS: I will just refer you to what I said in March.

I'm not sure what to think of the whole thing yet.

by **Rococo4** » Sun May 23, 2010 20:43:22

The Nightman Cometh wrote:BP has money. If their stock goes down a few points because they did not take proper precaution which they obviously didn't I have one word for you Rococo and the billionaires who run BP. Waaaaaaaaah.

who is even talking about their stock. i wish i ran BP or was a billionaire. I do have a BP chase visa though. didnt really address my point but okay.

by **Rococo4** » Sun May 23, 2010 20:46:00

CFP, I dont think it makes sense to hammer sestak on it, he turned it down. Maybe you mean attack the WH over it, then yes, it does.

Democrats should be happy Specter lost. They used him for the vote they needed and now he is unneeded. If you win the election you can get a real Democrat in there, not one like Specter.

That election was over the day Sestak launched the ad with Specter saying "I switched parties so I can get reelected." It was brutal and there was no coming back from that.

by **dajafi** » Sun May 23, 2010 20:57:04

On the Sestak/job story, George Will (no fan of the administration) shrugged it this morning on the ABC show. Politics is transactional, he said, and party leaders almost always try to influence who does and doesn't run. I think Rove did this sort of thing a lot, and I can't say it bothers me whoever does it. The parties are free to try to exert influence, as the candidates are to accept or reject the offers.

The more interesting criticism IMO is why the administration consistently backs unprincipled careerist hacks like Specter and Lincoln. But there's no media voice, other than maybe Maddow (whom I like but very rarely watch, so I have no idea) and lower profile people like Greenwald, who'd bother to ask that question. Still, I think it's entirely fair to assert that the Obama administration has substantially become what candidate Obama ran against. Like they all do, I guess.

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Sun May 23, 2010 21:10:17

Rococo4 wrote:
The Nightman Cometh wrote:BP has money. If their stock goes down a few points because they did not take proper precaution which they obviously didn't I have one word for you Rococo and the billionaires who run BP. Waaaaaaaaah.

who is even talking about their stock. i wish i ran BP or was a billionaire. I do have a BP chase visa though. didnt really address my point but okay.

That it was an accident? Who cares whether or not it was an accident is my point. They need to pay for everything from the clean up to the gasoline and time that the Coast Guard has wasted trying to stop the leak.

by **drsmooth** » Sun May 23, 2010 21:51:20

Rococo4 wrote:
drsmooth wrote:
Rococo4 wrote:I'm no Rand Paul fan, I wanted Grayson. But I agree with what he said above.

Accidents happen a lot more to BP than others

uh? what else are you talking about? even if there are examples, i am sure it was an accident anyways.

Accident records for other oil companies, compared with BP. Their track record is not as good as their competitors.

It doesn't make economic sense for a company to profit when things go well, and shrug off their problems as "accidents" when they don't. Of course it's an accident. BP's accident. That doesn't mean everyone else pays. It means BP pays.

Said another way, it doesn't really matter if it was an accident or not.

Archived

Is There A BETTER Day to Start the New Politics Thread?