DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - breaking: the washington post doesn't understand basic economics

**8Zgkdeee** · 07-06-2010, 04:48 AM

anyway, back to the original post, I'm not sure what you are trying to say, Kuci. A ban on BP wouldn't be economically motivated. It would be purely a political and principle gesture. I think you (and KH for that matter) seem to get too caught up on economics and not realize that people and governments are willing to do things which don't make sense economically because they hold other values higher than economic efficiency or whatever is your golden calf.

Are you ****ing retarded? The point is not that it's economically inefficient to punish BP by refusing to purchase petroleum products from them; the point is THAT IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY PUNISH BP.

07-06-2010, 04:48 AM	#9
8Zgkdeee Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 457 Senior Member	anyway, back to the original post, I'm not sure what you are trying to say, Kuci. A ban on BP wouldn't be economically motivated. It would be purely a political and principle gesture. I think you (and KH for that matter) seem to get too caught up on economics and not realize that people and governments are willing to do things which don't make sense economically because they hold other values higher than economic efficiency or whatever is your golden calf. Are you ****ing retarded? The point is not that it's economically inefficient to punish BP by refusing to purchase petroleum products from them; the point is THAT IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY PUNISH BP.
	Quote