U.S. Politics

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Continuing...

Spicy Turkey:

The EPA's role can be regulated through free markets via property rights. If by any chance I find that my neighbor is polluting, and that pollution is spilling through my property then I have the right to sue him.

This would be a horrible idea for businesses.

Businesses engaged in manufacturing or commerce of any kind need clear guidance regarding the standards they are expected to meet. As flawed as the EPA is, it at least has the virtue of having publicly announced, debated, and written standards that are the same for everyone. That means businesses know how to design their plants, and need only comply with changed standards if they are formally changed. And even then, pre-existing facilities are sometimes grandfathered in.

If you toss this into the hands of the court system, you're going to let individual juries, judges, and paid expert witnesses determine on a case by case, facility by facility basis what will be permitted, and what will subject the facility to liability. You could have different juries reach different results on the exact same facts, based on the exact same level of emissions.

It's a really bad idea.

[sologdin]

that market remedy for pollution via lawsuit (eh? are they privately owned courts, too?) offered by mr. turkey (is that ottoman or poultry?) is paying us with our own coin, as we can already sue polluters.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

that market remedy for pollution via lawsuit (eh? are they privately owned courts, too?) offered by mr. turkey (is that ottoman or poultry?) is paying us with our own coin, as we can already sue polluters.

Presumably, he wants to eliminate the EPA, which sets the standards under at which at least some private environmental suits proceed, and which sets standards entitled to some degree of deference in some cases.

[sologdin]

the free marketeer answer, then, is that a man's property is his own private kingdom, on which he might pollute as much as he wants--but if one drop of pollution spreads to another man's private kingdom, he gonna take em to da courts?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

the free marketeer answer, then, is that a man's property is his own private kingdom, on which he might pollute as much as he wants--but if one drop of pollution spreads to another man's private kingdom, he gonna take em to da courts?

Well, that may be Spicy Turkey's position, but I don't think that's the position of everyone who believes in the free market. And just as a qualifier, "free" has to be a relative term, or it quickly devolves into sheer lunacy and definitional headgames.

I once got in a an argument at a Federalist Society meeting with a hard free market guy bitching ( in his speech) about the prohibition on plastic bags in some places in California. I said that if you really were a libertarian, and the right to swing your fist ends at my nose, then isn't there a legitimate state interest in regulating the disposal of waste, particularly on lands that do not belong to you? He kind of backed off and said he'd rethink that, but I don't think you can be a rational supporter of the free market or libertarianism without conceding that at least some government-enforced environmental regulations are appropriat.

And as you implied, I don't see quite the "free market" difference between standards imposed by elected representatives, and standards imposed by randomly-selected juries. There's nothing "free" about court judgements enforced by the police.

[Shryke]

In Primary update news, Cain is now polling single digits and there's now news coming out that he was having a long-term affair with another women.

Now we just need to see who's next once Gingrich's numbers start dropping.

[Fez]

In Primary update news, Cain is now polling single digits and there's now news coming out that he was having a long-term affair with another women.

Now we just need to see who's next once Gingrich's numbers start dropping.

He's also "reassessing" his campaign:

Herman Cain told members of his staff that he is “reassessing” his decision to remain in the race for the Republican presidential nomination following new allegations that he conducted a 13-year-long affair with an Atlanta businesswoman.

Cain said on a conference call Tuesday morning, with around 90 supporters listening, that he was concerned the story would cause “too much of a cloud," according to multiple media reports.

ETA: I'm not sure there's enough time for another anti-Romney candidate to arise either. Also they've now cycled through everyone except Huntsman (ha!) and Santorum who with his strong beliefs about sex being only about reproduction may be too far beyond the pale even for the Republican base.

[awesome possum]

Hopefully Huntsman. Of course, a little bit of sanity being introduced fully into the race might make heads explode.

Ready to get flabbergasted/pissed off?

That bank bailout was bigger than anyone thought

Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year

And yet, these fucking banks spent almost $30 million in 2009 (or was it 2010?) on lobbyists whose sole job was to try to kill banking reguations... also known as the things that might prevent the corruption that led to the collapse in the first place.

I don't think I'm alone when I say I'd like to see the heads of each bank CEO decorating the White House fence.

[Shryke]

Hopefully Huntsman. Of course, a little bit of sanity being introduced fully into the race might make heads explode.

Ready to get flabbergasted/pissed off?

That bank bailout was bigger than anyone thought

And yet, these fucking banks spent almost $30 million in 2009 (or was it 2010?) on lobbyists whose sole job was to try to kill banking reguations... also known as the things that might prevent the corruption that led to the collapse in the first place.

I don't think I'm alone when I say I'd like to see the heads of each bank CEO decorating the White House fence.

Is this the same thing as last time where they are counting a $50 billion loan on day 1 that's payed back on day 2 followed by a $50 billion loan on day 3 payed back on day 4 as $100 billion?

[awesome possum]

Is this the same thing as last time where they are counting a $50 billion loan on day 1 that's payed back on day 2 followed by a $50 billion loan on day 3 payed back on day 4 as $100 billion?

From the article:

Bloomberg came up with that number after reviewing "29,000 pages of Fed documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and central bank records of more than 21,000 transactions." Bloomberg adds, "The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day."

Unless they paid back $1.2 trillion on Dec. 6, 2008...

[Shryke]

From the article:

Unless they paid back $1.2 trillion on Dec. 6, 2008...

You are missing the point. The total number given was "$7.7 trillion".

Is that $7.7 trillion at once? Or $7.7 trillion over a period of several loans?

[awesome possum]

You are missing the point. The total number given was "$7.7 trillion".

Is that $7.7 trillion at once? Or $7.7 trillion over a period of several loans?

I'm not the one missing the point here.

The article answers this for you. I answered it for you again when I posted the quote that said on 12-5-08 alone the banks were given $1.8 trillion.

[Shryke]

I'm not the one missing the point here.

The article answers this for you. I answered it for you again when I posted the quote that said on 12-5-08 alone the banks were given $1.8 trillion.

That doesn't answer the question at all. Like, not even a little bit.

If I loan you $10 every day and you pay it back every night, that is fundamentally different then if I loan you $10 a day and you still owe me all that money or you accumulate it and pay it back as a lump sum.

Why does this matter to you?

Because it puts the numbers in perspective. Again, last time the "OMG, bank bailouts were so big" came up like this, it turned out that it was actually just a series of small short term loans and the people in question were just adding them all up and saying "the government loaned the banks trillions!!!!!" when in fact it had only loaned them much smaller amounts multiple times.

[awesome possum]

What does it matter?

The banks were loaned $1.2 trillion on one day. I don't give a flying fuck if they paid it back the next day, they needed over a trillion dollars on one day alone to keep from going belly up, and they were given it despite the fact that they fucked themselves into their own predicament.

Fuck them and fuck that. Heads on fucking pikes.

[Atreides]

Shit, we do need a Ned Stark for president.

[SpicyTurkey]

Presumably, he wants to eliminate the EPA, which sets the standards under at which at least some private environmental suits proceed, and which sets standards entitled to some degree of deference in some cases.

This. I would prefer regulations to be as local as possible.

[SpicyTurkey]

Well, that may be Spicy Turkey's position, but I don't think that's the position of everyone who believes in the free market. And just as a qualifier, "free" has to be a relative term, or it quickly devolves into sheer lunacy and definitional headgames.

I once got in a an argument at a Federalist Society meeting with a hard free market guy bitching ( in his speech) about the prohibition on plastic bags in some places in California. I said that if you really were a libertarian, and the right to swing your fist ends at my nose, then isn't there a legitimate state interest in regulating the disposal of waste, particularly on lands that do not belong to you? He kind of backed off and said he'd rethink that, but I don't think you can be a rational supporter of the free market or libertarianism without conceding that at least some government-enforced environmental regulations are appropriat.

And as you implied, I don't see quite the "free market" difference between standards imposed by elected representatives, and standards imposed by randomly-selected juries. There's nothing "free" about court judgements enforced by the police.

Freedom is the ability to do as you please as long as it does not impede on another individuals freedom to do as they please. (That is my definition.)

[sologdin]

it's worthless as a definition.

[DanteGabriel]

Santorum is the only other person I think could get their moment in the sun, but I think that he might have a bit of the same problem that T-Paw had in that he's not very inspiring.

Plus, the Google problem.

[TerraPrime]

he's not very inspiring.

Oh, I don't know. I find Santorum to be very inspiring, alright. :P