UK - US could it be divorce ?

[DukeOfYork 28]

You mean like when he condemned the US auto industry, Goldman Sachs etc?

Obama is an anti-business, immature, man-child. Of course he's going to condemn BP and any other big business so he can look like the savior of the working class (who are now out of work because of his deep water drilling moratorium).

Anyone notice that he said he didn't want to talk to Hayward b/c corporate types will just tell him what he wants to here, yet he wants to have "dialogue" with someone like Ahmadinejad?

He really needs to wake up and get a reality check.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Obama is an anti-business, immature, man-child. Of course he's going to condemn BP and any other big business so he can look like the savior of the working class (who are now out of work because of his deep water drilling moratorium).

Anyone notice that he said he didn't want to talk to Hayward b/c corporate types will just tell him what he wants to here, yet he wants to have "dialogue" with someone like Ahmadinejad?

He really needs to wake up and get a reality check.

I think thats a simplistic analysis of it, and certainly a partisan political one. I would tend to think that he is more anti-corporate blunder, which seems to be the case when it comes to this oil spill as well as goldman sachs and the U.S. auto-industry. The latter failed because of their failed business model, while the former is now suffering because of human error in both application and supervision.

Let's be clear here, this oil spill was not the result of force majeure, it was the direct result of human error. Now what level of liablity is to be levied upon which corporation remains to be seen.

[Captain Oates 910]

Obama is an anti-business, immature, man-child. Of course he's going to condemn BP and any other big business so he can look like the savior of the working class (who are now out of work because of his deep water drilling moratorium).

Anyone notice that he said he didn't want to talk to Hayward b/c corporate types will just tell him what he wants to here, yet he wants to have "dialogue" with someone like Ahmadinejad?

He really needs to wake up and get a reality check.

apparently he wants to talk to Hayward and the Swedish Chairman of BP in the white house

No doubt he will have a big timmy mallet ready for the cameras

Hayward will probably say - "didn't we burn the white house down in the 1812 war"

http://www.brillianttv.co.uk/timmymallett/images/ozone-05.jpg

[KaiserD 12]

British apathy is a world beating product but is presented as tolerance.

What else explains the election of a monkey in newcastle or screaming lord such's support ?

It's true, the "but what can we do about it" attitude.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

He's within his rights to invite the Chairman and Chief Exec to the White House, and it would do them well to attend. As Louis Brandeis once said, sunshine is the best disinfectant.

[Captain Oates 910]

He's within his rights to invite the Chairman and Chief Exec to the White House, and it would do them well to attend. As Louis Brandeis once said, sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Tried sunshine on the cat's litter tray - it didn't work

[Nik+Heather 121]

(Note this is not meant to be sarcastic at all ) What should he do about this exactly though?

I'm with Kaiser on this one. I can't say that I've been following closely, but I haven't read anywhere where they said "Doing XYZ is how you're supposed to do this, and it's not happening" (in terms of stopping the spill/cleaning up) Rather, I've heard a lot about the response so far, deploying oil capturing booms, preparing and outfitting all sorts of boats for deploying those, building sand bars, etc.

If anything, the gov's reaction to this whole issue which I most disagree with is running around fanning the flames of angry-ness. I do believe that BP is doing everything they possibly can to get that spill under control, and running around hand wringing (or pitchfork waving) is just a waste of energy.

Furthermore, they have already started on a long term future solution, checking into the regulation and separating out the different interests.

I also agree that from my American perspective, anything said against BP is as the company not as British Petroleum.

Anyway, my two not-expertly informed cents...

Edited June 11, 2010 by Nik+Heather

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Tried sunshine on the cat's litter tray - it didn't work

Try harder.

[Captain Oates 910]

Try harder.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant for your cat's tray

When it comes to cat trays - try Sunshine from BP - you can't lick it !

[DukeOfYork 28]

I think thats a simplistic analysis of it, and certainly a partisan political one. I would tend to think that he is more anti-corporate blunder, which seems to be the case when it comes to this oil spill as well as goldman sachs and the U.S. auto-industry. The latter failed because of their failed business model, while the former is now suffering because of human error in both application and supervision.

Yes, it is simplistic: in an Occum's Razor sort of way. It's also accurate.

You leave out the government responsibility in both blunders. The government failed to properly oversee the banking industry. I can still remember Barney Frank saying that Fannie and Freddie Mac were perfectly fine.

The government also failed to respond quickly and responsibly to the oil spill. Where were the booms the 1994 emergency plan called for? Why were Jindal's requests ignored for more than 30 days before any sort of approval was given?

[The_Dude 1,142]

Yes, it is simplistic: in an Occum's Razor sort of way. It's also accurate.

You leave out the government responsibility in both blunders. The government failed to properly oversee the banking industry. I can still remember Barney Frank saying that Fannie and Freddie Mac were perfectly fine.

The government also failed to respond quickly and responsibly to the oil spill. Where were the booms the 1994 emergency plan called for? Why were Jindal's requests ignored for more than 30 days before any sort of approval was given?

You don't seem to get it. In the case of a natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina, that is the duty of the government to lead the cleanup after. In the case of a corporate blunder that results in a disaster, it is the duty of the corporation who caused it to clean up. There is no way that BP, transoceanic, or Halliburton will be able to prove force majeure on this one.

[Captain Oates 910]

You don't seem to get it. In the case of a natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina, that is the duty of the government to lead the cleanup after. In the case of a corporate blunder that results in a disaster, it is the duty of the corporation who caused it to clean up. There is no way that BP, transoceanic, or Halliburton will be able to prove force majeure on this one.

It will be interesting to see how far the liability will ripple though - I think it will just be direct costs. If someone in Maine is so distressed at the images of pelicans that they have a nervous breakdown, can they sue ?

How about a shop that sells shrimping nets and who's takings are down ?

The liability dividing line is where it's at and that's why BP shares are up a lot for 2 days running. Top of the list for 2 days.

It's crazy on CNN - they have a row of shrimp fishermen saying it's the end of the world and they need money now.

Then when they are asked whether people should eat shrimp they say "oh we have lots of fine shrimp totally unaffected it's superb and no problem"

Same fishermen - same interview.

That's why BP are saying all justified claims and O is saying they have to be broken on the rack

40% of the shares are held by Brits and 39% by americans and same for dividend too of course.

tax take of the two governments is similar - so for every 40 billion mr O takes out of BP's hide with his nasties, half of it is loss to the US pensioner/tax payer anyway.

He doesn't care if it gets him re-elected and a win in November too.

You don't think the USCIS is reading this do you ? aaarrrggghhhh !

[The_Dude 1,142]

It will be interesting to see how far the liability will ripple though - I think it will just be direct costs. If someone in Maine is so distressed at the images of pelicans that they have a nervous breakdown, can they sue ?

How about a shop that sells shrimping nets and who's takings are down ?

The liability dividing line is where it's at and that's why BP shares are up a lot for 2 days running. Top of the list for 2 days.

It's crazy on CNN - they have a row of shrimp fishermen saying it's the end of the world and they need money now.

Then when they are asked whether people should eat shrimp they say "oh we have lots of fine shrimp totally unaffected it's superb and no problem"

Same fishermen - same interview.

That's why BP are saying all justified claims and O is saying they have to be broken on the rack

40% of the shares are held by Brits and 39% by americans and same for dividend too of course.

tax take of the two governments is similar - so for every 40 billion mr O takes out of BP's hide with his nasties, half of it is loss to the US pensioner/tax payer anyway.

He doesn't care if it gets him re-elected and a win in November too.

You don't think the USCIS is reading this do you ? aaarrrggghhhh !

It appears that my pension is quite heavily invested in BP. But in the long run, I'm not too worried. I would be if I were looking to retire in the next 3-5 years, but seeing as retirement is probably 20-22 years off, I'm not too overly concerned. But with that, I must keep in mind the horribly litigious nature of the U.S.. I do think that when they finish the inquiry, that the cost to clean up this disaster should be taken from Transoceanic, Halliburton and BP, according to the proportion of liability in which they are culpable for.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Rob and Mel

[Captain Oates 910]

It appears that my pension is quite heavily invested in BP. But in the long run, I'm not too worried. I would be if I were looking to retire in the next 3-5 years, but seeing as retirement is probably 20-22 years off, I'm not too overly concerned. But with that, I must keep in mind the horribly litigious nature of the U.S.. I do think that when they finish the inquiry, that the cost to clean up this disaster should be taken from Transoceanic, Halliburton and BP, according to the proportion of liability in which they are culpable for.

Totally agree

but establishing blame % - that's the easy bit - finding the line for what is a direct cost will be tricky as everybody will be claiming - even models who can't be photographed on the beach any more and anderson cooper for getting oil on his shoes.

-and Mr O will be egging them on as they are all voters and I don't think he cares about anything else

[The_Dude 1,142]

Totally agree

but establishing blame % - that's the easy bit - finding the line for what is a direct cost will be tricky as everybody will be claiming - even models who can't be photographed on the beach any more and anderson cooper for getting oil on his shoes.

-and Mr O will be egging them on as they are all voters and I don't think he cares about anything else

I do hope that the government will put out some sort of statement that there will be no mental anguish lawsuits allowed. But then again, you're going to get people who live on the coast who will bring up a lawsuit for the declining value of their homes, or some idgit who will try to claim that the smell of crude oil has irreparably disturbed her psyche. Our civil legal system is really embarassing.