…but this article which argues that free markets is an ideology of death is close to the dumbest. Here’s just one example of the author’s inability to think. He argues that a laissez-faire free market ideology led to the Deepwater Horizon tragedy. That’s pretty ironic because BP, or Beyond Petroleum as they wanted to be called, tried for years to court progressives and liberals—hardly something a laissez-faire company would do. But that’s just the beginning. Read the whole thing if you want to laugh or cry.
Life, Liberty, and Property
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/opinion/18kristof.html
What’s your point John? It’s pretty a warm year so far. It won’t end up the warmest year on record, at least not according to the satellites.
Re the above, if you can’t understand my point I can’t help you. Kristof is extremely clear. Did you actually read this?
Your post about BP is a great example of writing without thinking. You seem to be arguing that BP is not a “laissez-faire” company (what’s a laissez-faire company?) because they tried to court progressives? What an amazingly simplistic analysis. It makes no sense. BP courted progressives to try to encourage progressive not to regulate them. You think they courted progressives to ask to be regulated? Of course they preferred a laissez-faire approach to regulation. This is obvious. It saves them money. The MMS has been “captured” by the oil industry thanks to the massive attack on regulation under GW. This is well known, and the phenomenon of “capture” of regulatory bodies by the industries they regulate is rampant throughout the government thanks to both democrats and republicans. But mostly GW’s administration.
Here’s a somewhat thoughtful column about climate change from one of the conservatives who I regularly read:
“Rising temperatures won’t “destroy” the planet, as fearmongers and celebrities like to say. But the evidence that carbon emissions are altering the planet’s ecology is too convincing to ignore. Conservatives who dismiss climate change as a hoax are making a spectacle of their ignorance.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/opinion/26douthat.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
A laissez-faire company is one what rejects government intervention. BP, on the other hand, welcomes government intervention.
How is my post about the article about BP an example of writing without thinking? Are you saying that BP has a “conservative laissez-faire free market ideology”? You do not provide any evidence that is true. The article I was citing argues that BP has a “conservative laissez-faire free market ideology.” That is utterly absurd.
BP courts progressives for a few reasons. First, BP wants to be regulated, but in ways that help it, but harm it’s competitors. That’s why they supported USCAP and cap-and-trade for example. Over the years, BP has wanted subsidies for its green programs—another reason to support progressives. Also, BP wants access to policymakers to have input on policy. For at least the last decade, BP has not supported laissez-faire policies or organizations that support laissez-faire policies. Instead they have supported increased government interventionism.
What is your evidence that there was a “massive attack on regulation under GW” especially the regulation of oil and gas companies?
As for Kristof, I’m glad we all can agree that some glaciers have declined in size.
By the way, it seems that we agree about global warming policy. In his conclusion Ross Douthat wrote, “But you can see why conservatives might lean toward the wisdom of inaction. Not every danger has a regulatory solution, and sometimes it makes sense to wait, get richer, and then try to muddle through.” I can agree with that.