====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Jaquin writes: "What Brad argues is CLEARLY a conspiracy theory. He says they won't take the simple direct step of blowing up the well to shut it down BECAUSE they want to keep the possibility of renewing extraction in the future. For this to be true, there would have to be one or more groups of decision makers who have privately deliberated and have reached that unpublicized decision for the secret reason that Brad offers. If that ain't a conspiracy, then I don't know what is." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well I guess you don't know what a conspiracy theory is then. Why is it that there would have to have been decision makers privately deliberating and reaching the decision for secret reasons? It is call the profit motive. I never once said there were secret meetings or a deliberated plan in place. That is *your* conspiracy understanding of how capitalism operates, not mine. My understanding of capitalism tells me that capitalists and capitalist states will do as little as possible when it comes to environmental protection, that they will do whatever least bit of protection that the public will allow them to. They don't have long meetings over how this will play out in the press and with the public to consider the best possible solution with the least possible ideological fallout. They simply act and then react to public pressure. If everyone buys the idea that BP is best suited and is doing everything possible to stop the flow - because it is obviously bad PR for this thing to go on - then they just do what they planned to do. JB- "When Brad first raised it towards the beginning of June, I pointed out that the continuing economic cost to BP far outdistanced any putative economic benefit to saving the well. And as for Obama and the government, nothing would have pleased them MORE than being able to bring a close to this spill quickly and decisively, for they are also paying a tremendous political cost. That is ALSO what is clearly and beyond debate in the interests of the oil industry AS A WHOLE. Because the argument would then be, "sure we had a spill, but now we have a way of stopping it in a few days before there is extensive environmental damage. So there's no need for new restrictions, a drilling moratorium," etc. Any way you cut it, losing this one well would be FAR PREFERABLE to continuing with this situation, even just for another week or two." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, what you said was that BP stood to make no financial gain from not stopping the spill sooner. Which I then proved to be false - BP is still making money off of the recovered oil and will be back at this well quickly after this is over and the press has moved on. Have there been costs associated with it, yes. Have these costs been greater than the benefits, perhaps, but to think that they have this all figured out and planned is the true conspiracy theory and one that gives way too much credit to capitalists. The only thing that pleased Obama and others more than stopping it soon would be to have BP stop it themselves, thereby maintaining the confidence, or rather sheer reliance, on corporations to solve our/their problems. This trumps any short-term political cost Obama pays to progressive environmentalists (who he is really in office to sell out anyway). And no, the worst possible scenario for the oil companies would be for the government to step in and solve it quickly thereby showing the need for intervention in markets by the state to secure the public good. But this is not conspiracy as this idea probably never really entered into the heads of the elite because of the ideologically rigidity under which they operate. I never said that it was all about this one well, but that it was political. I think I have made this point dozens of times already yet you and Mark simply ignore what I say and attack some strawman argument about saving one well. Pitiful. JB- "When I first said this WEEKS ago, Brad conceded the point: "yes now it appears that BP and Obama would not have tried to end the spill on the cheap and save the well, but hindsight [is 20-20]. When this thing first happened I would guarantee that there were meetings at BP in which they went through various options and choose to go with the cheapest plans and the ones that would save the well first." That was Brad on June 20, admitting it was clear --at least in retrospect-- that BP and Obama would NOT be letting this continue if they could help it." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually my point was obviously the opposite of the one you claim it was and confirms your inability to actually comprehend what is written in front of you. Real slowly now: I said in hindsight it would appear to Obama and BP that they should have done more to end the spill sooner, but they don't operate with hindsight or with any long-term understanding. They did it on the cheap because that is what capitalists do- cut and externalize costs. Does it come back to bit them in the ass from time to time, sure. Should we try to capitalize on this, yes. JB- "First, bourgeois "nationalization" does not have one smidgen, not one atom of progressive content....That's what a nationalization of BP now would amount to. Brad views it as positive because it would be "a major symbolic and ideological victory." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Did I say bourgeois nationalization? Of course this is not what I meant when I wrote nationalization, other times I have written appropriation and seize assets. Yes, you are engaging in a word game. You then go on to say that the problem is that there is no left and no real environmental movement right now so we could never get the type of ideal nationalization that you think we should. Therefore, you conclude that we should not try to even push for symbolic and short term gains that could build such a movement. I am wonder what you would offer instead? Should we sell newspapers? Or just give up on the advanced left as imperialist and take up the banner of those in the south (where there is even less of an organized left capable of doing something). This is just so much laziness and defeatism. I hope Carrol attacks you as much as he does others when they claim the left to be not functionable and blame the weak left for the failure to move on opportunities (or will he further expose himself as self serving hypocritical windbag?)? JB- " Instead, socialists are, I think, better off concentrating on propaganda, in other words, trying to reach a much smaller number of people with a more complicated explanation of just what kind of nationalization we're for and why. And I am of course leaving aside the even more immediate problem of just who would do the agitating. For, given the state of the class movement, the disorganization and incoherence of our sect-plagued socialist movement should really not be a surprise, and it is in no shape to agitate for anything." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ah yes, the old the- problem is we aren't sectarian and purist enough because we are too sectarian and purist. Therefore, we shouldn't be doing anything and those that do are conspiracy theorists. Brilliant! Brad ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
