breaking: the washington post doesn't understand basic economics
 

They should nationalise BP.

hail Chaves! http://www.discussworldissues.com/im...ons/icon14.gif

Or maybe they do, and can make a great political gesture that is almost completely devoid of any sting.

the Americans should take over BP, break it in parts, sell it off and pay off for the consequences of the spill

it will teach the British not to spill the oil in the gulf anymore http://www.discussworldissues.com/im...ons/icon14.gif

yes the rich should pay proportionally more expenisve parking tickets, it would be good for the economy.

I don't get the joke...http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/frown.gif

By adding a vacuum cleaner?

I can't tell if you're kidding or not. If you aren't, then this is a ridiculous statement...

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.

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/rolleyes.gif

These contracts represent ~0.03% of the market for a highly fungible product.

Think that through: A HIGHLY FUNGIBLE PRODUCT.

It could manage to punish BP more. Neither effect is large relative to teh size of the contracts.

What occasionally happens on the internets when messages are posted within a minute or two of each other?

Oh what a girl http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/angry.gif

DO NOT APOLOGIZE TO HIM! He is not your wife! He would sacrifice you for money, just like he did his career in physics when he realized the partical collider could not be used as doomsday tool to blackmail world leaders. Nothing is sacred to him ESPECIALLY not your balls. And DO NOT DO NOT SAY MY BAD! This is NOT JUNIOR HIGH! I am not expecting miracles out of you kid but we are WHITE COLLAR! http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/mad.gifAn:AngrY: :angrY:

It would be an incredibly pointless gesture since BP would be essentially unaffected, and you're as dumb as the WaPo editors for not seeing that immediately.

I think he is just being obtuse.

Maybe "think" is wrong. More precisely, "hope".

AS: is there ever a time when we shouldn't do the right thing?

The idea of a dichotomy between "the right thing to do" and "the thing we ought to do" is just hilariously incoherent http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif

Right by whose standards?

Let me take a step back because I notice that in my discussions with you and KH, our brains are possibly wired differently or I'm just bad at the art of debate or whatever... I think I jump to points too quickly without clearly delineating them.

Let's take the war on drugs for example. Now, granted the research is mixed on the effectiveness of the war on drugs, but suppose it were clearer that the war on drugs is not cost effective nor even effective in attaining its goal of stopping drug use. Suppose government control through legalization was empirically shown to be more cost effective and more effective in limiting drug use than the war on drugs. Logically, if this were true, you'd be stupid to support the war on drugs.

But if that were to happen, I guarantee you regardless there would still be untold thousands of Americans who would still support the war on drugs. You might call them stupid and they very well might be stupid because they are undermining their damn stated goal!

But the point is there is something in human nature that would motivate these people to continue to fight a losing cause that they know is not effective. It would be the mere principle that is valuable to them.

What good is the martyr who rejects Rome and dies to the lion in the coliseum? He is not spreading his faith. He would do far better in achieving his goals by appeasing the Romans and secretly preaching as most Christians did. No, he was motivated by righteousness. He wanted to do the principled thing.

(I'm not equating those who support the drug war to martyrs on any value comparison. I'm just noting examples of a phenomena of human behavior)

Because you don't understand what the **** you're talking about.

Ghetto econ don't work in the brokerage http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...es/doitnow.gif