Drill, Baby — Maybe

The nation has watched in horror as the oil slick from the British Petroleum rig in the Gulf of Mexico approached the ecologically fragile wetlands of the Louisiana coast, and I found myself among those thinking, “We cannot let this happen in Virginia.”

For once, I found myself agreeing with Peter, who wrote in a previous post: “Big Oil with its Big Money would not be the only industry along Virginia’s coast that [Gov. Bob McDonnell] is sworn to protect. Consider the fishing, tourism and commercial shipping sectors, not to mention the U.S. Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard which use offshore Virginia waters and pump in billions to the state’s economy.”

But before we conclude that offshore drilling cannot possibly be conducted safely off the Virginia coast, let us bear in mind the vast differences between conditions in the Gulf and conditions in Virginia. The BP rig is drilling in 5,000 feet of deep water — pushing the technological envelope for operating in extreme conditions. Any drilling that takes place in Virginia would be on the continental shelf in shallow water (shallow by oil industry standards).

Andrea Shea King posts on her website a fascinating description of the disaster, which details the engineering challenges of operating in deep water. The question for Virginians is this: How likely are these conditions likely to be replicated off our coast? To what extent do risks of oil spills increase with the depth of the ocean bed? Does it make sense for the state to permit drilling at certain depths with exceedingly low risk and to prohibit drilling at deeper depths where risks are greater?

Assuredly, some people will use the BP disaster as an excuse to limit all drilling under all circumstances. Let’s keep our cool and ascertain all the facts before jumping to any conclusions.

Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

93 responses to “Drill, Baby — Maybe”

  1. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    thanks Jim for continuing to offer your well articulated thoughts.

    You said " The question for Virginians is this: How likely are these conditions likely to be replicated off our coast? "

    I demur slightly.

    Would you not agree that the key question is – for whatever the conditions are – that we can have confidence that McDonnell would advocate for an open process and explicitly stated safeguards – appropriate for Virginia?

    In other words, McDonnell could lead by example and show how folks CAN TRUST that one size does not fit all is much more than an anti-govt slogan.

    What the Gulf disaster proved was that the current US approach to regulation of offshore drilling does NOT TAKE in ACCOUNT – the conditions nor the risk.

    You would think that offshore drilling that is 50 miles offshore at the limits of technology that risks the most productive salt water fishery in the world is different than 500 miles offshore.

    yet.. not only do the regs not take this into account (as you properly say they should) but, in fact, our standards ALLOW drilling at the limits of technology without requiring known and available safeguards required by other countries.

    Now the right wingers will say that this proves that govt regulation is incompetent and does not work…

    leaving us with this idea:

    Regulation did not stop the Gulf Disaster and won't prevent a disaster off of Virginia either but lucky for us – the conditions are not as challenging so we're safe.

    not putting words in your much but showing that by NOT advocating for BETTER REGULATION, you play right into the hands of those who say that this disaster was an unfortunate accident (like Mr. McDonnell) and it should not prevent Virginia form financing our highways from offshore oil.

    I take the word "Conservative" literally ( I know, dumb move ) which means we should be conservative in policies that have substantial risks – and that a smart conservative SUPPORTS the level of regulation that is appropriate for the understood risks.

    This is what McDonnell should be saying instead of "it was an accident and accidents happen".

    words like that undermine trust in govt and govt regulation.

  2. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    we gotta get EMR some help..

    important ideas are not being adequately promoted….

    " Taller Buildings, Cheaper Homes"

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/taller-buildings-cheaper-homes/

    perhaps some of EMR's supporters can help out.

    and yes this has everything to do with oil drilling and the need or oil for automobiles.

  3. Radio Patriot Avatar
    Radio Patriot

    Thank you for the link! Your work here is impressive. Keep at it!

    A fellow citizen journalist,

    Andrea
    The Radio Patriot

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Tall Buildings, Cheaper Homes" What a crock. The Tysons Corner crowd tried to make that argument for years. Bill Lecos, when president of the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce, talked and wrote about this point constantly. Other points of view were ridiculed.

    But guess what? Now that County approval of new Comp Plan for Tysons is close, the landowners are whining about the costs for building residential. The County has proposed a goal of 20% affordable and workforce housing with the Transit Oriented Development zones to reduce traffic. (Of course, the landowners think that the U.S. Constitution gives them a right to free density on the backs of everyone else.)

    One would have thought Fairfax County had imposed draconian conditions in exchange for massive increases in density. Some landowners go further and oppose even building any residential with the TOD areas. It's too expensive. It's too burdensome. I'm going to take my ball and go home.

    I've been told that once a building exceeds three or four stories, construction costs skyrocket. So there's no desire to build residential, except very high end residential, despite all the promises to the contrary. What a farce! High buildings won't bring affordable housing. It's just one more scam for the landowners to extend their corporate welfare.

    TMT

  5. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Jim,
    Thanks for the rather limited tilt of the hat. A few other pointers,

    (1) Is the piece you cite by a Byron King or the Radio Patriot?

    (2) While Deepwater Horizon is a tough technological project due to the deep depth, a shallow depth disaster off Virginia might actually spread the oil faster, giving the Coast Guard, state and corporate officials less time to respond.

    (3) You do not address the technical innovations the Brazilians and Norwegians have but BP did not.Why or oil firms off the U.S. not required to have them? Would rigs of Virginia be so required or is that not "free market" enough for you?

    (4) You do not address the inherent conflict in the libertarian laissez-faire no regulation shtick with the tendency of big corporations like BP to do whatever they can to cut costs and skimp on safety and quality. As a former long-time employee of Media General, you ought to understand this. What say you?

    (5) Just saying, "Gee let's stay cool and assess this," is a bit underwhelming regarding perhaps the biggest offhsore oil spill this country has ever seen and one, that due to currents, might actually end up coating the Outers Banks of North Carolina, one my
    favorite places on earth.

    Peter Galuszka

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    When the price gets high enough, there will be ways to pump very safe, deep oil.

    Say $50 a gallon fuel?

    In the meantime please document all the ways to cut by 80 percent the use of petroleum – beside Fundamental Transformation of human settlement patterns which has been on the list for 40 years and well documented for 10 years.

    Concerning the ‘small government’ types Dana Milbank does a nice job in today’s WaPo with “ Through oil-fouled water…”

    His data on return on federal tax dollars in red and blue states is worth the price of the paper.

    Given the ‘winner’ states just think what the distribution would be for New Urban Regions vs Urban Support Regions or better for inside the Clear Edges vs outside the Clear Edges. (Perhaps they should be ‘Supported By Urban Regions’ as in ‘ROV.’

    Observer

  7. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    natural gas is the least bad of the choices in my view.

    you are never, ever going to convince people to get out of their cars or to not take better jobs even if they are 30 miles further and give them 10 times the gas money required to get there.

    Everyone – the most ardent enviros and functional settlement pattern folks need to get their heads screwed on straight and deal with the realities because not dealing with them basically takes you and your views out of the game and we need people in the game finding paths to a better future – not egg-throwing sour pusses.

    some day, our energy grid will be a lot more solar and wind and tides and who knows what other technological discoveries but in between now and then, we have to find a way to turn the ship gradually….

    envrios and functional settlement pattern folks do not need the party of "no" in their approach to solutions… we have too many right now that are essentially working – not for solutions – but political gridlock.

    vandals I call them.. left or right.

  8. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    The problem is less "big government" vs "small government" than it is "smart government" vs "dumb government".

    Liberals believe that making government bigger will make it smarter. I don't believe that and don't believe the historical evidence supports such a conclusion.

    Here are some observations:

    1. Just about 30 days ago Barack Obama was caught on tape saying that oil wells generally don't cause leaks because of the technological advances in those very oil wells. President Obama may be many things but a proponent of small government he is not. If new regulations would have prevented this oil spill then Obama has had 15 months to institute those regulations. Instead, he was publicly commenting on how safe off-shore drilling is. I don't fault Obama for his misperception. I fault the argument that says if we just poured more money into government Obama would have known that offshore oil rigs are not safe and would have tightened regulations and prevented this spill.

    2. Norway and Brazil. There are those who believe that Norway and Brazil have used regulation to ensure that an oil spill like the one in Lousiana would never have happened or would have been far less damaging. The FY10 federal budget is $3.552T. Apparently, that isn't enough money to implement regulations which copy those of either Brazil or Norway.

    3. In 1989 the Exxon Valdez went aground in Alaska and spilled an unholy amount of oil. As usual, the liberals hemmed and hawed about the need to regulate for double hulled ships. As always, the sudden insight happened only after the oil was spilled. The skipper, Joseph Hazelwood, was accused of being drunk although those charges were dismissed. In any regard, nobody doubted that the spill was Exxon's fault. Exxon was successfully sued for the costs of the cleanup plus punative damages. Exxon fought the verdict up to the US Supreme Court and got the total reduced. However, as far as I can tell, Exxon has still not paid the full amount. When Willie Nelson owed a paltry $16.7M in back taxes in 1990 the government siezed his assets and forced him to pay most of his income to the IRS. By 1993 he had paid all of his debts. Apparently, our government is big enough to make individuals make good on their debts but not big enough to make Exxon do the same.

    Making the government bigger won't make it smarter, it will only make the nation poorer.

  9. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Who made Government BIGGER Groveton if not your buddy George Bush who blew up the budget on MORE DEFICIT government spending while GUTTING regulations …making the govt do regulation DUMBER on purpose to get private companies a free rein.

    The man and his buddy Tom Delay passed Medicare Part D as the biggest expansion of entitlement health care in 30 years… and he and his bodies forbade the govt to negotiate for drugs like the VA does.

    and you call this small, smart government because apparently you believe that your Republican buddies should take over again as soon as they can – right?

    You actually believe what those idiots say about smaller, smarter govt despite the way they actually governed?

    We'd have MUCH STRICTER oil drilling regulations for not only Wall Street but oil drilling if it was not for your Republican buddies who are fundamentally opposed to regulation and have maintained that Wall Street and Oil Companies can "self-police" themselves.

    I don't think the Dems have all the answers nor that they have the smartest approach to govt Groveton but I know a bunch of liars when I hear them…

    the party of "no" is trying every trick in the book to undermine and defeat Wall Street reforms..

    and they'll do the same when Obama steps forward and says "I screwed up, it's obvious that offshore is not safe, and we need stricter regulations and here's is what I propose".

    and no matter what he proposes, the party of "no" will say "hell no, drill baby drill".

    that's the truth Groveton.. and you know it.

    If the Republicans get back in, you can count on them gutting the EPA again, gutting offshore oil drilling regs and putting govt regulators to work on inspecting fly shit instead of regulating.

    the truth hurts.

    People who say they favor small and smart govt – never learn that this is standard Republican shtick for the gullible.

    Prediction: the offshore drilling fiasco is going to be traced back to what Bush and Cheney told the govt regulators to do, bet on it.

  10. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    I have just read an astonishing article about the oil spill in Louisiana. Here it is:

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gLiUWM39KjSOCwqEl9nZDVncfSlgD9FFSJ8O0

    One can only marvel at our federal government. In 1990, in response to the Exxon Valdez spill, the federal government enacted the Oil Pollution Act. This act is an example of the much – admired regulation ballyhooed by today's big government liberals. One would have thought that this act would have mandated that those who spill oil would have to pay all the costs of the spill. One would be wrong. The bill set the cap on economic damage at $75M. $75M?!?

    One would think that the Democrats in Congress at that time would have argued long and hard against such a flimsy cap. One would have been wrong. The legislation passed the house 375 – 5 and passed the Senate via voice vote. Ultimately, the legislation was unanimously approved in both chambers after conference.

    For 20 years the ticking time bomb of a $75M cap slept quietly in the incompetent legislation which attended the last huge American oil spill. And today … BANG! … the special interest driven cap explodes in the faces of all America.

    We don't need more faulty regulation, we need a new government.

  11. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    LarryG –

    Were there only 5 Democrats in the House of Representatives in 1990 when the absurd $75M cap on economic damages was set?

    The federal government has been broken for decades. Giving it more money and power won't fix it.

    Both parties are on the take my friend.

  12. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: both parties

    re: the regulation was wrong.. that proves govt can't do it right…

    give up on govt.

    right.. that's what Obama is doing with Wall Street – right?

    nope.

    it's the party of "no" that does not want the update the regs…

    so the party of "no", if they had their way would make few if any changes.. ceremonial in large part on Wall Street – and I predict on regulatory responses to this.

    They'll sing a conciliatory song during the "theater" leading up to legislation but at the moment where they have to vote yea or not – they will claim that the law is so onerous that it will drive the oil companies out of business.. make gasoline go to $5 a gallon, throw people out of work and give diarrhea to those not thrown out of work.

    The Republicans work just like clock-work on these issues.

    They work by subterfuge to gut legislation and gut the regulations if they can and then when something blows up – they claim that it just proves that (gutted) regulations "don't work".

    it's a totally cynical approach to governance.

    they are the party of "no"… they earned it fair and square and .. they still have apologists who ..when they have to choose between Dems and Republicans.. yes.. they'll choose the Republicans again.. cause who knows what crazy stuff chain-smoking "dear leader" and that Pelosi woman will cook up.

    right?

  13. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    "The Republicans work just like clock-work on these issues.

    They work by subterfuge to gut legislation and gut the regulations if they can and then when something blows up – they claim that it just proves that (gutted) regulations "don't work".

    it's a totally cynical approach to governance.".

    LarryG – the vote was 375 – 5 with a cap on economic damages which everybody knew wouldn't phase an oil company.

    It was a conspiracy of dunces not a conspiracy of Republicans.

    I feel like EMR…giving more power to government without FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE to government is just plain silly.

    Did I just capitalize fundamental change? Risse!! Your damn electronic brainwashing is working.

  14. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    basically your choice is to participate in the system we do have – as bad as you think it is – and I'm not going to strenuously disagree with that idea.

    we voted for change.

    unlike others, I'm not surprised that it's not exactly what some had in mind. unlike others, I assumed that Obama was a seasoned politician who would operate like most politicians..

    don't understand the rancor…

    there were two names on the ballot.

    you can certainly write someone in…

    you can support a 3rd party

    but at the end of the day – you're still here… and unless you want to head out to Mexico (the land of drug outlaws)… or Somalia – "you want Capitalism and small govt – you CAN'T STAND REAL Capitalism".

    Actually if Conservatives say tey are so dismayed that they are going to stay home or support yet another futile 3rd party scam..
    I'll probably do a Scottish Jig.

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Big Oil with its Big Money would not be the only industry along Virginia's coast that [Gov. Bob McDonnell] is sworn to protect. "

    And every person (entity, thanks to the supreme court) is entitled to equal protection, whatever that is.

    How do we go about balancing the interests?

    RH

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Although the Governments of France and England brought suits against the owners of the Torrey Canyon for $22 million, the settlement was made in the amount of $7.2 million. Britain alone was estimated to have spent more than the amount of the settlement in clean up costs, and no estimate was available from France.

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "The major operational consideration in any oil spill situation is that, if at all possible, the oil spill should be treated at sea to prevent the contamination of the coastline and attendant damage to the coastal ecology and economy. Operational procedures for combating oil spills at sea must be based on a 24-hour day capability and point to a logical order of priority. First, the oil should be, if possible, contained at the source. Second, the oil inside the containment area should be removed. And, third, the oil that has spread outside the containment area should be removed — the combatant method depending on the kind of oil, its age, the sea-state, and other considerations.

    The study points out that the technological capabilities to deal with major oil spills are severely limited:

    The state-of-the-art for combating oil spills in the open ocean has not progressed significantly since the Torrey Canyon Incident in March 1967, as demonstrated by the agonizing and expensive cleanup operations at Santa Barbara. In contrast, the state-of-the-art for combating the more frequent oil spills in harbors is developing rapidly because of public pressures, harbor regulations, and the less severe conditions."

    CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
    November 10, 1969
    Page 33590

    The report goes on to list the available methods for conatianment at sea:

    Booms, Dispersion, Combustion, Skimming, Sinking, Absorption, and Biological Degradation.

    "We estimate that these direct costs range from $1700 to $4100 for a small (1,000-gallon) harbor spill; from $64,000 to $115,000 for a medium (100,000-gallon) off-shore oil spill; and from $4.5 million to $8.5 million for a large (10,000,000-gallon of a 35,000-ton) off-shore spill.

    Senators may recall that the section of the Water Quality Improvement Act passed by the Senate which deals with oil pollution did not establish a liability limit in those instances when the Government can prove that the discharge was the result of negligence or a willful act.

    According to the report, the only operationally feasible method of oil pollution clean-up appears to be physical absorption, the use of straw to absorb the oil. This method would cost approximately $255 per gross ton in a 35,000-ton oil spill.

    Anyone want to draw a graph? The straw ALONE would cost you $250 a ton today.

    It's not like we didn't know this was coming.

    RH

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    (Of course, the landowners think that the U.S. Constitution gives them a right to free density on the backs of everyone else.)

    Well no, but it doesn't give everyone else the right to zero density on the backs of everyone else, either, does it?

    RH

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray, anyone can build to right. Jim Zook, chief of the Fairfax County Planning and Zoning Department, has told any landowner in Tysons who feels he/she has been down-zoned to bring the facts to P&Z and the situation will be remedied.

    Not one single landowner in Tysons has lost a single property right. What they are angry about is it doesn't look as if they will receive the windfalls promised them by Bill Lecos and others. The something for nothing crowd is not happy.

    TMT

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Not one single landowner in Tysons has lost a single property right. "

    In Tysons, they are newgotiationg for additional rights, which they should pay a fair amount for.

    My argument is that without a market, there is no way of knowing what a fair amount is.

    You are highly upset about what you see as a windfall for these people at your expense, and I believe rightfully so. What I don;t believe is that you have any different rights under the Constitution than they do, which is what your comment implied.

    Now, just because no Tysons owner has lost any property rights does not mean that no one in Fairfax has. The home I built in 1989 could not be built today, and I'm sure that there is someone in Fairfax with a similar situation today. He is out of luck, unless what you say about the board is true.

    We have a double standard, in which we expect people who get new rights to pay for them, but when we restrict rights we don;t want to pay. It is a triple standard, really, because in some cases the county will pay to have owners relinquish rights under an easement scheme.

    When this occurs,the county buys deeded property, and then gives it way! It is fundamentally no diffferent than giving money away to the Tysons owners, except that the benficiaries (conservation agencies) have better PR than the avaricious Tysons moguls.

    The county could turn around and sell those rights in another location, and some counties do that. Instead, unlike any other surplus property the county owns, they just give it away.

    It is not like this is a free program, because budget constraints this year caused them to cut the amount of funding for the project and unilaterally lower the amount paid. How would you like to be the guy who sold a building right for $25K this year and next year your neighbor gets $35k for selling his?

    What the county is doing is participating in half a market: the county set the price and the total market value. If you are really really nice to them, they'll let you sell them something. Otherwise, they will just take it.

    Ask a Tysons mogul when he has enough money and he will no doubt look at you in utter disbelief. Such a concept never occurred to him. Ask a conservation agency when they think they will have preserved enough land, and you will get much the same response.

    So I really don't see the marit in your one sided constitutional argument.

    RH

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I appreciate your position, but I don't think it is the only one. Over the years, my wife's family has been downzoned out of something over 50 potential homesites. Including one that was eliminated after it was promised in exchange for one of the previous downzonings.

    Even though I have no need or desire for those homesites, the fact remains that the missing potential has lowered the families net worth by a considerable amount. This is not chicken feed, and even if I never used them the potential changes my capacity to borrow for other projects.

    These were real rights that once existed an now do not. What kind of right is it that can be taken away? You will have a hard time convincing me that anyone can build "by right" because it depends mightily on when you build, therefore your statement is incorrect.

    In fact, I would wager that the real costs of what the county has done to my wife, and other old-time local families like hers, are a lot more than what it is going to cost you when Fairfax knukes under to the Tysons knuckleheads.

    Meanwhile,the county will proudly tell me to my face that aeveryone of those homes that weren't built saves the county $2700 a year. Those houses would not have been built anyway, but that is besides the point, the potential is gone and that cost her money.

    So, what is happening is that the county is "saving" something over $100,000 a year, at my expense. Shucks, if they would just pay me 5% interest on what THEY CLAIM I'm saving them, I'd be happy to put those homes on hold. And strangely enough that $5000 a year would cover my losses on the farm ag operations. And I'd have net worth I could borrow against to improve the operation, instead of burning a hole in my retirement account. fortunately I won;t need it because I'll probably I kill myself on the farm.

    Add that $100K to my tax bill, and the $35,000 the farm drops on the local economy every year, and I'm a hell of a bargain. I could gladly drop a lot more on the economy every year, if they would let me do anything but agriculture, but they want to save those farms, again at my expense.

    So, you will have to excuse me if AI'm not so sympathetic about the Tysons situation. When I see something that amounts to equal treatment and equal protection under the constitution, I'll be happy to support you. As long as you think you have rights that they don't, I can't figure you are actually looking for equal treatment.

    Until then, I'm as likely to write to my Fairfax representative and tell him "full speed ahead" as I am to have any sympathy for your problems.

    Sorry about that, but that's the way I feel.

    Now, the county controls development rights: new or old, used or unused. And that means they belong to all of us. You r neighbor may not value his portion of "his" building rights the same as you do. You should be allowed to hold out on yours as much as you like, and he should be able to sell his to the Tysons moguls for as little as he likes.

    When the moguls accumulate enough rights, then neither you nor I willbe in a position to say thay got something for nothing, or that they got treated any different from anyone else.

    But then, that isn't the goal, is it? The goal is to control what other people do, and that is a real Constitutional cornerstone, isn't it?

    RH

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Were there only 5 Democrats in the House of Representatives in 1990 when the absurd $75M cap on economic damages was set?

    I don't know. How many were in there in 1969 when the original bill was passed with NO cap?

    It is unfortunate, but often times, stereotypes get that way for a reason.

    I don't see this kind of partisan bickering as useful, and anyone that engages in it is my enemy. How crazy is it that todays fox five commentators were blaming Obama for the bomb that didn;pt go off?

    I'm pretty sure the career national security people are mostly all the same and mostly trying to do a near impossible job: like keeping Mexicans in Mexico.

    I put it in perspective this way: I don't even hit 100% with mousetraps. Sometimes they take the bait and get away. I wouldn't have to worry about it if the bait that brought them in the first place wasn't so attractive.

    The government isn't perfect, but if they do at least as well as I do with my mousetraps, I really can't accuse them of being incompetent.

    On mousetraps, I'm batting between 66 and 75%.

    RH

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray, the Virginia supreme court has made it clear that local government cannot engage in piecemeal down-zoning. But it has also held a local government can down-plan all or part of an area as a part of a review of the Comp Plan.

    With a proper record, Fairfax County could decide that the existing Comp Plan gives too much density to landowners located one-half mile or more from the four new rail stations. Based on what I've seen, I suspect that such a decision would be upheld. On the other hand, I don't think the county could sustain a decision to reduce density within one-half mile of the rail stations. But that is not the same as concluding those latter landowners have some right to up-planning.

    TMT

  24. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I'm sitting back enjoying this dialog and waiting with baited breath for the "liars and thieves" part.

  25. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    Following the Royal Navy to Davy Jones Locker.

    http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/05/03/gates-fires-at-carriers-subs-efv/

  26. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    isn't Gates a fiscal conservative Republican?

    Last I heard.. Gates was saying that it's not as much about money but what choices you make in spending it.

    We have among us – folks who say the govt is too big and too wasteful and should not be raising taxes as much as looking for ways to get smaller and smarter.

    Then the same folks who say this ..often with gusto… scream like stuck pigs when the chickens come home to roost.

    (I'm not saying that Darrell is one of these by the way)…

    so then.. we turn around and say the politicians won't do what is "right" – when, at the same time the same people calling for cutting waste, etc… are yelling at them for …. cutting waste but not the waste they had in mind.

    and from this simple concept – we have the Tea Party….

    the only problem is – they don't agree among themselves either on what the cuts should be.

    I note that fully 2/3 of them support Social Security and Medicare and have actually demonstrated with signs that say "keep your greedy govt hands off my Medicare".

    right?

    am I telling the truth here?

    you know I am…

    If yo aspired to be a Senator from Va – what voices would you be hearing and could it be that those voices could fairly be called a cacophony of conflicting views – each and every one of them "demanding" that govt straighten up and fly right?

    Bonus thought: What would happen to NoVa and HR/TW if the Govt actually got serious about spending within it's means?

    Would we then be hearing "woe is me sung in slightly different verse?

    I think so.

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I'm sitting back enjoying this dialog and waiting with baited breath for the "liars and thieves" part."

    If you expect more protection from the Constitution than you are willing to give your neighbor, then you are a thief. And if you claim you are doing it for the public good, then you are a liar as well.

    Satisfied?

    RG

  28. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    "What would happen to NoVa and HR/TW if the Govt actually got serious about spending within it's means?"

    NoVa wouldn't change much, HR is a different matter. If the Navy reduced to 9 carriers, that would leave 8 in service and 1 in repair at any given time. Because Asia is the primary focus, HR could be left with 2 carrier battle groups if the Mayport deal went through. You can do the math from there.

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I am currently reading an origiginal 1845 copy of Howe's History of Virginia.

    In it he talks about the earliest exports of tobacco to England, how fast the usage grew, and how bad it was deemed for the health. This is 1845, referring to conditions around 1611. Sometimes we don't learn very fast. One of George Yeardleys first acts at the first virginai General Assembly was to set the price of tobacco. government has been on a cockeyed quest to fix the price of produce ever since.

    The price of a wife, imported from England was 100 lbs of tobacco, later raised to 150 lbs., which I suppose marked Amerca's first devaluation of currency. At the time, you could purchase an entire windmill for 120 lbs of tobacco.

    How is t that we could build economical wind engines then, and sell them at a profit, and now we cannot?

    Howe describes in some detail how Yeardley and gates early on eliminated the dole, freed the indentured, ended community property in provisions and stores, and granted each the fruits of their own labors with a portion contributed to the central fund. And how it was that interest in participating in government increased as wealth increased. (The first Special Interests, who knew?)

    I don't have the exact quote in mind, but it was beautifully worded. The gist of it was that "The only use of government is to ensure the safety of the state from external foes, to secure justice and the free disposition of person and property to each individual, and ocasionally to aid in the prosecution of such objects of general utility as individuls enterprise cannot accomplish."

    There is no use for government which allows one to declare superior rights and protection over others, or wich obtains objects of general utility at the disproportionate expense of a few.

    Some things, the founding fathers knew as early as 1611. maybe Larry and TMT will figure it out someday.

    RH

  30. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray, the Virginia supreme court has made it clear that local government cannot engage in piecemeal down-zoning.

    Big deal. The Virginia supreme court, in doing so has basically said that local government cannot conduct an unfair vendetta against an individual.

    It should be no news to anyone that such treatment is unfair. How is it any less unfair just because the county government elects to apply it to a select group of individuals?

    Thank you for elaborating my point.

    RH

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    But that is not the same as concluding those latter landowners have some right to up-planning.

    There you go again, arguing what rights they do not have.

    They have the same rights you have and the same protection against overextension of rights as you have.

    If you are going to convince me of what Fairfax government should do, your argumant cannot start with anything that sounds like "they have no right….".

    Government should be doing those things that protect everyone equally, and occasionally do those things individuals cannot do. Like develop a Metro area. In doing so it still needs to protect the interests of those like TMT, so that they are equally protected from harm.

    The way to go about that does NOT go throught the path that says "they (epithet of choice) have no right…"

    Instead, it goes down the path that says here are everyones rights, and here is how we will value them and defend them.

    RH

  32. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/taller-buildings-cheaper-homes/

    My work with Joseph Gyourko and Raven Saks suggests that perhaps one-half of the cost of a Manhattan condominium can be understood as the price of land-use regulation.

    Restricting supply led to higher prices and a city with space only for the rich.

    Which is precisely what is happening in Fauquier county.

  33. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    did someone say we were at the end of the crisis?

    last I heard.. things were better but there were rapids ahead….

    no?

    but I don't quite understand the point ….

    we had an big butt economic meltdown.. no doubt about it… and lots of folks got hurt, and are being hurt and will be hurt.

    all true.

    so what?

    do we want to talk about why in terms of that if some folks had done what they were supposed to do.. it would not have happend?

    I'm game but I think it's pretty futile …

    we've got a pile of dog doo…

    and … we have to do the best job we can getting it off and yeah.. some of it in the nooks and crannies is going to stick around and stink longer than we'd like…

    For myself.. I believe that had the Govt not acted with the TARP and Stimulus that we would now be in a full-blown depression with 20+% unemployment – and the very real possibility that the govt would not be able to make good on it's entitlement promises.

    that may yet happen as predicted by many…

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    A lawsuit was filed recently, according to the Los Angeles Times (the real paper, I think, and not the virtual online one) in Pittsburgh (and you can't get any more real than that, folks. If you've been to Pittsburgh you know what I mean). The suit is against the real company (Linden Lab in San Francisco) that created Second Life, the virtual world that was using digital avatars long before the 3-D flick of the same name ever opened.

    Real people use their avatars in this virtual world to do things like purchase virtual real estate. And therein lies the very real problem: They use real money to do so.

    And now, the suit alleges, the real folks who run the real company that owns the virtual Second Life are trying to take away their rights over property that doesn't actually exist — without giving the real investors back their real money.

    It's a fantasy world, just like Fauquier county.

    ow, if the game-mker has to make restitution for taking away property rights previously promised, even if they ae for virtual property, this cannot bode well for real governments.

    RH

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray, Tysons landowners today have the right (with certain obligations) to build to what is permitted in the existing Comp Plan. No one has ever argued that they don't have those rights and associated obligations.

    Their rights and associated obligations in the future will be established by the BoS later this year. Landowners in the immediate TOD areas will likely be permitted to propose rezoning at unlimited FAR, subject to their proving compliance with the Comp Plan, specific other requirements and whatever they agree to proffer. And all density will be limited to an overall cap that will not likely exceed 84 MSF. There's about 45 million on the ground. But both Macerich and Lerner have already received approvals for some of this additional density. So we might have 84 million at best, less 45 or 39 million less what has already been approved for Macerich, Lerner and any other smaller parcels. Of course, the square footage of buildings demolished does not count against the remaining density.

    I suspect that landowners farther from the stations will be pretty much left where they are today. Anything that they build will be subtracted from the remaining density that is available.

    It looks as if there will be a "First-come; first-served" rule for allocating the density with time limits on starting construction so that one landowner cannot warehouse density.

    This result hardly seems draconian.

    TMT

  36. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    No one has ever argued that they don't have those rights and associated obligations.

    Actually, that isn't true. I have heard seeral people argue before the board that there is no reason that deveopment rights cannot be downzoned at will because the rights are not recorded and no vested interest has occurred. and similar arguments have been made in the papers and by public officials.

    There is a double standard: if you want new rights expect to pay for them, if you already have rights, don't expect to keep them.

    A county in california is trying to levy one couple 115,000 in fees for adding two bedrooms to their house.

    RH

  37. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "so that one landowner cannot warehouse density."

    In other words there are no development rights. You buy developable property, you better damn well develop it now.

    This is not a very smart way to prevent, manage, control or delay growth in urban areas. Not a samrt way to control the big developers.

    Then, in the rural areas it is not a good way to encourae landowners to conserve.

    I believe that nearby owners need to be indemnified against bad consequences as a result of development, but I don't believe they have the right to claim imaginary damages or to be obstructionary at every stage of the proess, as in the ICC.

    I don't believe the growth is bad growth raises aour taxes argument holds water. compare Loudoun and FAuquier 40 years ago and today. Sure, Loudoun residents pay more taxes. They also earn more income and own more property, so they are wealthier than before.

    That does not mean that growth is good and conservation is bad: it just means that there is a price associated with our decisions, so we had best be realistic about what they are.

    I don't see that happening.

    Anywhere.

    RH

  38. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Say Larry….

    When was Obama elected?

    'Cause BP got a categorical exclusion from performing a normally required detailed environmental impact analysis on its Gulf of Mexico drilling operations.

    The exemption was granted on April 6, 2009.

    Who was president on that day?

    Was it still Dubya?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050404118.html?hpid=topnews

  39. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    it's credible.. he could be in deep doo doo…

    the right-wing blogs are loving it.

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    the interesting story is why there wasno acousic latch on that blowout preventer. There is no regulation to require it, just as here was no regulation for enough lifeboats on the Titanic.

    But the cost is so cheap, you have to wonder what kind of fiscal logic would let you go without one. It's like driving a tractor without a seatbelt.

    ========================

    A tool for decision making, an EIS describes the positive and negative environmental effects of proposed agency action – and cites alternative actions.

    …the agency can first prepare a smaller, shorter document called an Environmental Assessment (EA). The finding of the EA determines whether an EIS is required.

    A limited number of federal actions may avoid the EA and EIS requirements under NEPA if they meet the criteria for a categorical exclusion (CATEX). A CATEX is usually permitted when a course of action is identical or very similar to a past course of action ….

    With 300 wells in the Gulf previously, this would seem to be a logical argumentfor no performing a full-up EIS.

    Contrary to a widespread misconception, NEPA does not prohibit the federal government or its licensees/permittees from harming the environment, but merely requires that the prospective impacts be understood and disclosed in advance.

    Italicized sections from Wiki.

    RH

  41. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    NEPA is a disclosure rule.

    the intent of NEPA is to require a hard look at the risks and benefits then a decision can be made – that is acknowledged to be potentially adverse.

    What NEPA seeks is to not have folks say after the fact "we never do".

    If BP ends up claiming their liability is limited to 75million, there is no way the Republicans are going to stay the course on their traditional small govt regulations philosophy – again.

  42. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    oops.. "never say, we never knew"

    The angst with NEPA comes from those who don't want the risks documented in the first place.

  43. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Groveton, As a follow up to your most recent comment regarding BP's exclusion from that environmental impact analysis…. OpenSecrets.org reports that BP contributed $71,000 to Obama's presidential campaign, compared to $37,000 to McCain's.

    Coincidence?

  44. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    no question about it.. this will not help Obama and if he does not address it forthrightly and honestly, it will seriously damage him.

    We know how Bush would have handled it, eh?

    so.. now we see this guy – and truth be known….

    I've said from the get go that Obama is a seasoned politician and that only time will tell whether all of his achievements are considered better than his failings and no President has ever lived who did not have failures….

    I'll be curious to see how he reacts to this.

  45. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    I am sticking with my story on this one – Obama is no better and no worse than those who preceeded him. His administration waived environmental reporting requirements. Why? Because big oil = big money and big money = big influence. I would bet that you can find similar behavior all the way back to the dawn of the oil industry. Wasn't Harding in hot water for Teapot Dome? Obama took money from oil companies for hos campaign. They all do. ExxonMobile's annual revenues are approximately the same as the GDPs of South Africa, Denmark or Argentina.

    Companies like ExxonMobile are like honey to Winnie the Pooh with our political elite – of both parties.

    Ray writes, "the interesting story is why there wasno acousic latch on that blowout preventer. There is no regulation to require it, just as here was no regulation for enough lifeboats on the Titanic.

    But the cost is so cheap, you have to wonder what kind of fiscal logic would let you go without one. It's like driving a tractor without a seatbelt.".

    I wonder that too. The $75M cap is for consequential economic damages. BP is still liable for the costs of the cleanup – which I assume will break the billion dollar mark.

    How did they come to the decisions they made?

    I am guessing that we are seeing another example of management by bookkeeper.

  46. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    this is pretty hypocritical in my view for those that defend the "free speech" rights of corporations and then turn around and point fingers at politicians who take the money – because if they don't their opponent will and will outspend the on media and win.

    So you're hypocritically defending a corrupt system while blaming folks like Obama for taking money and cutting deals with corporates.

    can't have it both ways guys.

    If you really do want Obama or Bush or whoever to NOT take corporate money then how would you make that happen?

    you, are, in effect, part of the cause of these kinds of disasters by defending a system that causes them.

  47. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If I give money to my representtive in hopes of swaying his views, how is WalMart doing the same thing any more corrupt?

    Isn't it like being a little bit pregnant?

    Like it or not, the Supreme court has essentially supported the concept of a corporation as a person. Or persons speaking with one voice.

    This all boils down to protecting the wallet, meaning property. either you are in favor of EQUAL protection, or else you are in favor of writing rules to take advantage of people.

    Anyway, no matter how this works out, the biggest loser in the deal will be BP and all their subcontractors and employees and stockholders.

    This is clearly a case of we hae met the enemy and he is us.

    As for management by bookkeeper, I think it is worse then that. I think some companies develop a culture of "let's pull one over on someone" particularly if someone is percieved as the big bad intrusive gummint.

    RH

    RH

  48. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Ray – you give a buck and they give a million and if the opponent does got get a million, he looses because he cannot mount a media effort.

    after the election – your one dollar donation is not going to have much influence ESPECIALLY if the million dollar donation folks are saying.. " if you want our support next time – you better have us over to talk with you about our issues".

    Do you think this is how BP does business?

    do bears do it in the woods?

    Ray steps up and says " HEY, I donated a buck and I DESERVE EQUAL treatment.

    ha ha ha ha ha…

    equal treatment – yup

    it's not in politics.. one dollar donations is fine.

    It's the hundred thousand dollar "votes" that you don't have but corps do.

  49. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    How did they come to the decisions they made?

    I think it is partly a perverse dependency on government, leading to lazy thinking. "If they don't make me do it, then it must not be important." "If they don't make me do it, then why should I do it?"

    They have failed to make an independent risk analysis. say there are 3000 rig in the gulf and there have been three blowouts: 1;1000. Say the acoustic switch for the blowout preveter is $50k.

    That means the probable cost per actual use is fifty million dollars. Still cheap compared to what the alternaive is going to cost in this case, but maybe the history is different. If it USUALLY only costs $10 or $15 million to cap a well and clean up, then the bookkeeper is right: it's not worth it.

    We as shareholders and other stakeholders might reach a different conclusion and decide it IS ALWAYS worth it, so we force the oil company to pay. they are "responsible".

    But in the end we all pay, at the pump or somwhere else, so we need the transparent information we need to make the decision of whether spending 50k is a bargain or not.

    RH

  50. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    how do you know this ahead of time with your equation?

  51. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray steps up and says " HEY, I donated a buck and I DESERVE EQUAL treatment.

    I deserve, and I am entitled to, equal treatment whether I donated or not.

    There is nothing wrong with me stepping up and saying I donated a buck and I deserve equal treatment, but it is illogical. Those two events are independent: I deserve equal treatment anyway.

    But if I donate a buck with the expectation of unequal treatment, then I am just as corrupt as one that donates a million bucks.

    How many people do I represent? Me. One. How many people does BP represent? Millions. On a dollars per person basis is their corruption really worse than mine?

    What if BP were a labor union?

    Corruption isn't modifiable by a number, whether it has a dollar in front of it or whether it is a demographic number.

    Like I said before, you either fight for equal protection, or you support corruption. I'm not impressed nor does my opinion of you change, just because you self righteously accuse the other, bigger, richer guy of corruption.

    I'm willing to accept that, but if all you are offering is a different brand of corruption, I'm not interested.

    RH

  52. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    large sums of money that come fro ONE entity no matter how many people they SAY the represent if not representing them if they don't agree with how that money is being used to influence policies by buying down regulations that end up in disasters.

    BP does not represent million of people no more than WalMart does.

    I buy BP and I buy WalMart but I do not support all of their actions by a long shot and I would say that our system allows them to make me donate to a fund used for corruptive purposes because they actually use that money to opposed me and they outvote me by using my own money to fund their activities.

    If you want to talk about corruption – THAT's CORRUPTION.

    It's like your mortgage company charging you a fee that then goes into a fund that they will use to lobby Congress to let them charge you additional fees.

    If you like this idea then you can be stupid but I wont.

  53. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    how do you know this ahead of time with your equation?

    It does not matter when you know. All you need to know is that the equation is always right. It can never fail.

    Searching honestly for the lowest cost solution is identically equal to always fighting for equal protection for everyone, and no more than that.

    The equationn is about cost benefit analysis and cost benefit says that everyone is treatede equally, whether they are born yet or not.

    We know what the historical probabilities are for major air crashes and we also know that they constantly improve.

    We know the historical probabilities for a major rocket failure, and we know they improve over time.

    We know the historical probabilities of blowout and now we have one more data point for large blowouts.

    Practically speaking then you draw a graph and you do not get an answer but a range of answers with probabilities. that leads you to a probable cost. And just as with the blowout preventer, the individual cost is small but the cost you expend before it actually does you any good is large.

    How do you know when it is too large? When you could hae spent the money on some OTHER project that offered similar savings at less cost.

    It is too large when it is costing you more on average than it is saving you on average.

    Youget samrter as you go.

    But there is no more point in asking how do you know how much prevention you should buy ahead of time than there is in asking how do you know how much damage there will be ahead of time.

    When we each have equal crystal balls that can see equal distances into the future, we will each be ale to buy exactly the right amount of insurance so that each of us has equal protection.

    Your argument goes like this: I know there wll be an accident someday, and so I have the right to demand unlimited protection from you today.

    Sorry, no dice, because that leads to a condition of unequal protection and it raises the TC side of the equation.

    Just because there might be unlimited damage someday does not mean that you can afford unlimited insurance today.

    That is the fundamental problem with health care. We wll ALL have unlimited damage someday [death]. But that does not mean that we can afford unlimited spending on immortality today.

    it is not a question of if you should spend or when or what on, but what is the right amount to spend before wrongful spending (too much or too little) boils down to either wasteful spending and/or stealing by taking advantage of assymmetric protection garnered through corrupt political practices.

    RH

  54. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    BP does not represent million of people no more than WalMart does.

    Agreed.

    They both represent millions of people.

    You believe in majority rule, right?

    RH

  55. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    "If you really do want Obama or Bush or whoever to NOT take corporate money then how would you make that happen?".

    I would change the US Constitution to exclude corporations from having free speech. Only individuals would have free speech.

  56. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    it's not in politics.. one dollar donations is fine.

    I disagree or agree either way.

    If I make a donation towards election then it does not matter whether I donate $1 or a million.

    But if I expect special treatment in return then it is corrupt whether I donate $1 or a million or whether a million of us donate a million dollars.

    Either way we are asking an elected representative to represent us differently than everyone else he is hired to represent.

    Incentives matter, and what we have here is a perverse incentive. if our elected representative DOES NOT represent his biggest donators [probably representing the most people, and certainly the ones with the most to protect], he won't get re-elected.

    He HAS to be corrupt, and we get the best politicians money can buy.

    But we ASKED for exactly that, so there is no point in blaming the system for being corrupt. It is us after all.

    There is, of course, the outside chance that special interest spending represents the MARKET for political decisions. There is a chance that what the most people put down the most hard cash for is what is actually best for the most number of people.

    EMR argues, for contra-example, that the high prices paid per square foot of urban residence proves that this is what most or all people want, which is a flawed argument and not the same thing at all.

    So, EPA sets a standard and both sides sue and EPA adjusts the standard. When the amount of money spent to protest is equal on both sides, you probably have a pretty good standard.

    For now.

    The problem being that the election system is a lousy feedback loop, and the system has tremendous inertia.

    The result is wasteful spending and oversteering, but we deliberately designed the system to be inefficient to avoid the collection of too much power.

    RH

  57. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "I would change the US Constitution to exclude corporations from having free speech. Only individuals would have free speech."

    Is there an Enterprise free speech clause in the Constituion?

    Perhaps all that needs to be done is to quash the myth that a corporation is a 'person."

    That is what Rbt. Reich suggests in "Supercapitalism."

    Make humans liable, not corporate persons.

    Observer

  58. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I would change the US Constitution to exclude corporations from having free speech. Only individuals would have free speech.

    OK, but you believe in corporations, and associations, and clubs because groups can do some things better than individuals, with more resources.

    Why not speech?

    And why do some people hold governemtn and unions as inefficient groups as opposed to other groups that are beneficial?

  59. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Is there an Enterprise free speech clause in the Constituion?

    Perhaps all that needs to be done is to quash the myth that a corporation is a 'person."

    You would be squashing a "myth" with a long history. I seem to recall from my Howes istory of Virginia tht four corporations were represented and the first Virginia convention.

    If you squash the ability of a corporation to speak freely, waht use is it? how would I negotiate a contract if I cannot speak freely?

    Also, how would you squash the rights of corporations without also squashing the rights of those "persons" that own them?

    RH

  60. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I buy BP and I buy WalMart but I do not support all of their actions by a long shot

    Products or Stock?

    If stock, do you actually vote your proxies? Otherwise what you think makes no diference. Not being an owner you have no property rights.

    The WalMart entity including shareholders works to position itself in the market so that you will think buying from them is a good deal, compared to their competitors.

    If you buy from them you validate their offer and tacitly enter a contract which generally approves of their activities.

    Otherwise, you are a meat eating vegetarian.

    Your options ae to buy stock and then put your mouth where your money is, or make your own products in whatever way you approve of. Presumably that will be a way that is more efficent and lest wasteful or damaging.

    Good luck with that.

    RH

  61. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It's like your mortgage company charging you a fee that then goes into a fund that they will use to lobby Congress to let them charge you additional fees.

    If you like this idea then you can be stupid but I wont.

    Well, OK, but the equation is ALWAYS right.

    Suppose you decide not to participate in any mortgage and never buy until you can afford to pay cash.

    Then you learn that this option, despite all its virtue actually costs you more than hiring a mortgage company that also lobbies to screw you.

    Never spend more to fix a problem than the problem costs. It is not green.

    RH

  62. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    We have counter vailing arguments that we don't trust government but we don't trust corporations either.

    Especially not Sierra Club.

    All we really trust is individuals looking out for themselves, and we want to make sure they have the right to bear arms.

    I thought it might be instructive to see how things work in just such a place – Mogadishu.

    http://mises.org/daily/2701

    "The Rule of Law without the State"

    Who would have guessed that they have law, and it is based on property rights and compensation?

    Who would have guessed that it even includes a "blood price", something we seem to struggle with.

    And it depends on wise third parties to resolve disputes.

    RH

  63. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    groveton got the correct answer. Ray is lost again.

    Ray – the Mafia and Drug Lords are organizations you know?

    The Grand Plan for this Nation was one-man one-vote and when ONE corporation can out vote millions of people – AND determine the course of this country – to include oil spills due to bought-down regulation then we can dismiss the pretenses.

    The reason our country is messed up right now is – in no small way – due to the amount of money that a candidate has to have to be a viable candidate and corporations are only to welcome to front the money.

    When you go into the voting booth you do not get one-man, one-vote.

    It's pay to play and if you want to influence someone – you better be willing to pull more than a 5 out of your wallet.

    because at the end of the day, that candidate is going to get a media bill for a lot of money and he's going to remember the folks who help pay it.

  64. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    an equation that is always right but you cannot use it for decision-making because you don't know what the values necessary to make it balance – until after the fact is not useful.

    How do you know how many safeguards need to be in place BEFORE you drill?

    your equation is just dandy at telling us AFTER we know the cost of a massive disaster.

    how does it tell us that cost BEFORE the disaster so that we know how much money we DO need to speed to mitigate the risk?

    so it's useless…

  65. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "an equation that is always right …..is not useful.

    Of course it is.

    It is certaly more useful than a wild ass guess about the future, which you also cannot verify until after the fact. Arguing that it is no good because it cannot see into the future is ridiculous: nothing can.

    I didn't invent this thing and it is commonly used.

    What it does do is point out that you donot necessarily lower costs by reducing government action, for one thing.

    For another, it gives yu a framework with which to compare competing activities.

    It is not useless because it gives you a uniform way of collecting historical data, and updating as yougo along. But that means that someone has to go back – post legislation – and continue to accrue the data. This is something we generally do not do.

    how does it tell us that cost BEFORE the disaster so that we know how much money we DO need to speed to mitigate the risk?

    Well first you have to decide how much of the risk you wish to mitigate. You can NEVER mitigate all the risk, because, as you point out, you cannot see eery eventuality into the future.

    Even ehen you have a good handle on the risks, you cannot afford to mitgate ALL of the risk. An airplane has a radio and a back up radio (and now there is probably a cell phone) but you don't put in three or five backups, because the historical data tells you that the risk is so low, you cannot fix it without increasing total cost.

    A risk free environment is just as financially and just as physically impossible as a pollution free environment is. The laws of economics are derived from the laws of physics.

    The atomic model cannot tell you where an electron is at any time, nor predict where it will be in the future. That answer is only probabilistic. But it can tell you where that electron WON'T be, and that is useful knowledge.

    Besides, what makes you think that you cannot estimate the cost of a massive disaster, just because it has not happened? We know how much it costs to lay a mile of boom or run a skimmer boat. We know that evey sea otter rescued after the Valdez incident cost $433,000. (Flying in fresh seafood is frightfully expensive, and lord knows what the pollution cost of THAT was.)

    The equation is EXTREMELY useful, but the problem for you is that the equation makes it easy to see that the answer is not likely to be the one you want.

    RH

  66. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    We have cleaned up oil spills before, and we know whaht he reults were, and what it cost.

    So now you say that we would like to have in place an oil spill response that it ten times better than the last, based on some criteria. Equipment on location or staged for use, response time, critters lost as a function of spill amount etc.

    You figure out what it would cost to prevent that.

    Then you figure out what it is going to add to the price at the pump or the gas meter.

    Remember, you have already said that an eight cent increase at the gas pump is politically impossible, for road improvements.

    So, if seven cents is your price limit you can make a comparison that estimates how many human lives and critter lives can be saved with X dollars road constructio vs X dollars oil spill prevention vs X dollars flood control and wetlands protection.

    You don't need to see into the future at all to wrok this problem: you just need to set a price that you are willing to pay for human and critter protection.

    RH

    RH

  67. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    the equation is useless because it cannot tell us what the costs are ahead of time which is what you need to have to know how much we should be paying to mitigate.

    If your equation actually "worked", then we'd not be going back and outlawing previously-approved pesticides and tightening up previously-thought-safe pollution levels in the Chesapeake Bay or what kind of long-term damage that cannot be fully compensated for in this oil spill.

    Your equation would have told us, for instance, that the 500K blowout preventer was a bargain and it did not so apparently it is NOT in "common use".

    the equation does not tell us this.

  68. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    we did not require double-hull oil tankers until AFTER Prince William sound was essentially destroyed as habitat for a long, long time.

    if your equation actually worked, it would have said that no tankers should be in Prince William sounds unless they are double-hulled.

    Your equation is a theory that "in theory" should work but in practice – it's a theory – that does not actually work.

  69. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    the Mafia and Drug Lords are organizations you know?

    Yes, and the mafia does its job better than an individual druggie.

    Your point is beside the point and does not defeat my argument. They are unethical becasue they are promoting their own interests above everyone else's.

    That old bit about being thieves still holds.

    RH

  70. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    we do not allow the Mafia to operate because they are more "efficient" than a druggie.

    your values are totally screwed up Ray when you are arguing that the Mafia's "interests" are just as valid as any other.

    Would I trust you to make other similar determinations?

    nope.

  71. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The reason our country is messed up right now is -….

    too many people think there is only one reason.

    There are lots of answers that are simple, immediate, cheap, and wrong.

    They can't be bothered looking for the right answer because the process for doing so, while accurate, is also difficult, confusing and imprecise.

    And it is notlikely to get the result that special interests want.

    RH

  72. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    corporate money in political elections is destroying our ability to govern.

    that's no small thing.

  73. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    we do not allow the Mafia to operate because they are more "efficient" than a druggie.

    Utterly beside the point.

    Mafia continues to operate because it is more efficient than a simngle druggie and harder for us to stop.

    Are you seriously arguing agaist the proposition that we create organizations BECAUSE they can do things individuals cannot?

    I never said anything about whether the organizations goals are desirable or not.

    You are the one in favor of mob [democratic] rule. What would you do if Mafia ran as a third party – and won?

    My policy and my argument would not change. Whether you are Republican, Democrat, Mafia, Environmentalist, or Alien you are thief if you expect more protection for your work and your stuff than you are willing to give me.

    RH

  74. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Corporate money in political elections is overwhelming YOUR ability to govern.

    That ability was a small thing to begin with.

    Now you get two three votes instead of one: you can vote in elections, you can vote with the dollars where you buy your goods, and you can vote your proxy in BP.

    How do you figure you lose out?

  75. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    An organization that is "efficient" while it kills and maims those who will not be extorted is not a "corporation" that the American people would willingly support.

    The fact that our government can be subverted by corporate money is also something that we should not tolerate – either.

    Ray's premise seems to be that everyone has their price and so that means each one of us is no better than the Mafia, eh?

    so.. you give a politician a $1000 bucks and you're no better than the guy that plugs people in the forehead with a 45 for not paying for "protection".

    sorry Ray.. don't agree guy

  76. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " Now you get two three votes instead of one: you can vote in elections, you can vote with the dollars where you buy your goods, and you can vote your proxy in BP."

    How can you vote to force BP to use 500K blowout preventers instead of destroying the livelihoods of thousands of people who depend on the Gulf for their income?

    how do "we" vote for that, Ray?

  77. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Corproate Contributions and Immigration:

    You can make immigration illegal and then pretend it isn't happening.

    Same with corporate contributions.

    ————————-

    Suppose we start with the proposition that we all own environmental resources equally.

    Then you put up a barrier that says United States Border. "You cannot come and use "our" resources."

    Isn't that why the great lakes states are passing laws prohibitng water from bein exported out of the Great Lakes basin? They are monetizing water, and onservationists are in favor of it because it promotes conservation.

    Suppose you own stock in BP. BP is going to have an interest in government because they know that

    TC = PC + EC + GC.

    As a stockholder in BP your poltical position is necessarily schizophrenic. You want BP to do well so your stock will do well, but you don;t wnat them to cause you more environmental cost than they earn you from production costs. And you certanly don't want them to do anything that is going to increas producton cost.

    But as soon as you realize that what you really want is lowest TC, everything becomes clear. You want BP to lobby government to keep their costs low, but you don't want them to succeed so well that other costs go up.

    You don't want BP to lobby so successfuly that their property gets better protection than your property, except that, your property includes a piece of BP.

    And a piece of the environmental damage they cause.

    RH

  78. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    how do "we" vote for that, Ray?

    Buy BP stock and vote your proxy for directors that support your position.

    I don't think that is really your position, because now you own BP stock. And among the thousands that depend on the gulf for their livliehood are those in the drilling business: they are going to belosers, too.

  79. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    so.. you give a politician a $1000 bucks and you're no better than the guy that plugs people in the forehead with a 45 for not paying for "protection".

    As usual you have spliced two opposing ideas into one sentence to make them both look ridiculous.

    Neither of them are my idea.

    You pay $1000 for protection. You want to pay it to whoever gives you the most protection, because it is the only thousand you got to work with.

    If you have to pay it to the mafia it is because government isn't providing sufficient protection. The government (by default) is protecting the mafia property rights more than yours. You can also pay to Sierrra club to get protected against oil spills damage.

    Which one gives you the most immediate "bang" for your buck?

    Mafia protection comes with a "permanent" contract and not much of a guarantee: you think you don;t have to continue pay the Mafia if some thug throw a a rock through you window?

    Kind of like you social security contract with the goernment, isn't it?

    Don't try to make it out that I like the Mafia just because I pointed out that the Mafia has certain common organizational behavior.

    I hate ANYONE who is trying to pick my pocket equally. They are all thieves if they are not working towards lowest TC.

    RH

  80. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Ray's premise seems to be that everyone has their price and so that means each one of us is no better than the Mafia, eh?"

    My neighbor told me once that she hoped my proerty was nver subdivided.

    I asked here wat she would do when someone offered her $15 million for her corner lot on the freeway.

    "I'm outta here."

    Either you have a price or else you are claiming that your property has infinite value and deserves infinite protection over and above everyone else.

    You cannot claim that you do not have a price if you are unwilling to see a market established for it.

    Either youare willing to put your money where your mouth is, or you are producing worthless blather.

    RH

  81. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Ray – you are one misguided soul.

    No politician is going to tell you that it costs $1000 to influence him and if you don't pay he's going to break your kneecaps, – UNLIKE the Mafia "protection" which is NOT OPTIONAL…..

    If Facquier was the "thieves an liars" you say and used Mafia tactics – you'd be riding your tractor as a paraplegic, eh?

  82. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You were the one that thew out the thousand dollar price.

    You Have abandonded the argument that we make organizations (of all kinds) because they do some things better than individuals.

    Therefore, if you are arguing against that idea, then you lost that part of the argument by walking away from it. Show me an organization that exists because it is a failure.

    I don't think you are making that argument, because you agrue that we need more regulaton from the organization we call government.

    I donn't see why you bother with the rest of it, unless it is because you cannot reconcile logic with your basic beliefs.

    You believe in majority rule,and I think that has obvious problems: You could elect a dictator or criminal with a majority and have no way to argue your way back out.

    You believe that corporations are not citizens and should hae no rights. Well, government is not a citizen either, but it is composed of citizens and you believe government has certain rights that cannot be removed.

    I see that as a maelstrom of contradictions. If I had to live with them, I'd be as grouchy as you are too. Governments and Corporations are both comprised of citizens. Government and corporations both have rights, which are distinct from those of the citizens which compose them.

    Sometimes they are both distinct and in contention.

    But that is not a problem under my system because I know that TC = PC + EC + GC, and I know that the only thing that really matters is lowest TC.

    My observaton is that people who are not arguing for lowest TC are ususally arguing a partisan position on behalf of ONE of the other terms.

    In some cases they will be right, sometmes. Mostly, they will be wrong. Therefore, as a general rule, if someone is arguing a partisan position and NOT arguing for lowest TC then they are arguing against my best interests, in favor of theirs, and that makes them a thief.

    I don't care if it is government, corporate, special interest, or individual or who claims the high moral ground.

    I they are not arguing for lowest TC then they are not on my side. And on top of that, if they are not arguing for lowest TC then they are wasteful of resources, and prottecting resources and property uneqaully: they are neither green nor ethical.

    It is not me or my reasoning that is bizarre. what is bizarre is what happens when you apply it to your [multiple and interanally conflicted] premises.

    If you start with a premise, apply logic and come up with an impossible result, then the premise is wrong. It must be wrong, no matter how good and noble it sounds when expressed.

    Only if you are insane can you continue to operate on that premise and expect good results.

    RH

  83. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    UNLIKE the Mafia "protection" which is NOT OPTIONAL…..

    Hold back $1000 from your taxes and tell me how optional it is.

    Government is nothing but an uber mafia. Government collects its money by force under the police powers clause.

    That Mafia does not write down its enforcement endorsement, is the only substantive difference. The collection policy is the same: "if you don't pay me bad things will happen".

    RH

  84. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If Facquier was the "thieves an liars" you say and used Mafia tactics – you'd be riding your tractor as a paraplegic, eh?

    If Fauquier was the Mafia they would have enough sense to let me pay them whatever it costs them to do as I please.

    Fauquier is unwilling to open a market on what they claim is valuable. Then they set the price at infinity. That makes them worse than the mafia because they are self righteous despots.

    Having no choice in what I do, the Fauquier system will eventually result in me riding my tractor as a paraplegic.

    In fact, I'm about to go throw myself on their mercy and ask them how I am supposed to retire before the farm cripples me, if there is no one left willing to take on the work for negative pay.

    Last night I worked onthe knot tying mechanism on my haybaler for two hours. then I spent four hours with alternating hot and cold packs, plus drugs to alleviate the pan in my hands.

    I don't find that kind of remark remotely amusing, especially since all three of my brothers suffer from muscular dystrophy.

  85. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: " You believe that corporations are not citizens and should hae no rights. Well, government is not a citizen either, but it is composed of citizens and you believe government has certain rights that cannot be removed."

    I believe corporations have rights – a lot of rights – but they do not have the right to buy the government that DOES belong to citizens.

    you get a soft apology on the paraplegic comment because it was not intended in any way than an alliteration of the difference between how the govt treats those who don't pay and the mafia.

    My apologies on the collateral.

  86. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    No apology required. I'm dead serious when I say that county government is worse than and makes less sense than the mafia.

    My first response to the Supreme Court decision was that it was utterly crazy, but after actaull thinking about it for a while and ignoring my gut reaction to puke over it, I cannot find any logical reason that it is wrong.

    I can spin off any number of emotional reasons that it is wrong, but I can't make them hold water.

    I used to have one vote. I own shares in a hundred companies. Now I have 101 votes. The hundred votes are weighted according to my ownership. The company makes me put my money where my mouth is, if I want to have something to say about what they do.The cost of doing that is priced on the open market.

    I can't find anything wrong with it.

    Sperry used to make farm equipment: I was repairing some of it last night. Sperry got out of agriculture and now they do computers and guidance.

    Sperry is smarter than Fauquier county and makes more money.

    Who should I vote for?

  87. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    they do not have the right to buy the government that DOES belong to citizens.

    Supreme court says otherwise.

    Corporations are owned by citizens.

    Citizens have the right to expect the same treatment/protection of their property as anyone else.

    Citizens are free to lobby.

    Citizens are free to associate.

    Citizens are free hire lobbyists to speak for them collectively.

    Why shouldn't citizens hire lobbyists to speak for their collective interest in the corporation?

    Corporations cannot vote, but citizens can, so corporations are already second class citizens.

    Corporations cannot go to jail but citizens can. Corporationsare privileged in this respect, but we can jail corporate officers.

    Now, what do you do when a corporation you own is acting in a way detrimental to your other interests? sell you stock so you have no voice?

  88. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I just don't buy the argument that government can never organize itself to do anything right.

    I don't buy the aregument that corporations shouldhave no say in how they are regulated.

    RH

  89. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    if our forefathers wanted corporations to vote, they would have given them the same rights of citizens.

    Lucky for us our forefathers are smarter than some of us.

    Corporates should have the ability to regulate themselves?

    They already do.

    Most of our govt regulatory agencies are staffed by industry workers hand-picked by politicians to use kid-gloves on their ex-employers.

    This is how the Govt Mining Agency looks the other way on mining regulations – and miners die.

    And this is how oil drilling companies that have to use blowout preventers in other countries – instead, make deals and buy politicians in this country so they don't have to.

    but the most obscene thing they do is to donate large sums of money to political candidates – with the understanding that the successful candidates will be inclined to listen to the corporates – more than to citizens.

    I do not think our forefathers who took – one-man one vote – pretty seriously intended or corporations to have votes or they would have made it so in the Constitution and they did not.

    Call political influence money "free speech" is obscene.

    NO CORPORATE MONEY in political campaigns!

    other countries outlaw corporate money in politics.

    we should too.

    If the Tea Party REALLY wants change and to get rid of the professional politicians – this is how to do it and that ought to be their first priority or the corporations will just get their hooks into the Tea Party candidates also and "out vote" them.

  90. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    VOCABULARY

    Some time ago on this string,

    Anonymous said…

    We have counter vailing arguments that we don't trust government but we don't trust corporations either.

    Especially not Sierra Club.

    All we really trust is individuals looking out for themselves, and we want to make sure they have the right to bear arms.

    ………..

    This foolishness and the attempts by Larry G. to make sense of the issue could be cleared up by reading Dr. Risse's THE ESTATES MATRIX and using the terminology that reflects reality.

    We plan a note on TC = whatever soon.

    JNMcC

  91. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I'll make a deal with you guys JNM – ya'll put together a blog and/or an archive that supports your advocacy, and I'll read it.

    In this day and time don't you think a "stealth" approach to information sharing is a bit quaint?

    You say.. I have to read.. to understand and so I ask where .. and the answer is "coming soon on a CD"..or some reference to something written years ago and not available online…

    could ya'll please join the 21st century?

    I'm willing to read.. are you willing to support your advocacy?

  92. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "if our forefathers wanted corporations to vote, they would have given them the same rights of citizens."

    If I understand it correctly four corporations were represented at the firs virginia assembly.

    Obscene or not, it is the law of the land, somehow someway supported by that all knowing majority you love.

    Get used to it.

    RH

Leave a Reply