breaking: the washington post doesn't understand basic economics

[Al B. Sure!]

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.

[N35t0r]

Don't get them started on the relative usefulness of manufacturing religious and/or decorative figures out of valuable metals.

[KrazyHorse]

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.

[Hauldren Collider]

If it punishes anyone, it'll be us more than BP certainly. But more likely it just means someone else will buy BP's oil. It's a commodity. It's fungible. It's like dollar bills, oil is created equal.

[KrazyHorse]

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

Think that through: A HIGHLY FUNGIBLE PRODUCT.

[Hauldren Collider]

I'm agreeing with you...

[KrazyHorse]

If it punishes anyone, it'll be us more than BP certainly.

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

[Asher]

I'm agreeing with you...

Not enough funginicity in your posts.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm agreeing with you...

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

[Hauldren Collider]

the world asplodes, obviously. I already have my shotgun for zombies ready

(serious: nvm, my bad)

[Wiglaf]

Oh what a girl

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! An:AngrY: :angrY:

[Al B. Sure!]

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.

Again, it's not about whether it has an effect or not! It's about the principle. There's a lot of evidence that the War on Drugs is retarded but there's reason for many to support it no matter the efficacy of it just because it's the 'right' thing to do.



you're not as bright as you think you are, KH.


(whether supporting the 'right' or principled thing regardless of its efficacy is the correct thing to do is debatable and usually probably not correct. I'm just making the point that people are willing to fight losing wars and crusades even if they know they will be a waste to the bitter end because they feel it is the principled course. Call it stupid or impractical but it's an aspect of human nature, especially those with a righteous or prideful sense.)

[Kuciwalker]

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.

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.

[Kuciwalker]

Again, it's not about whether it has an effect or not! It's about the principle. There's a lot of evidence that the War on Drugs is retarded but there's reason for many to support it no matter the efficacy of it just because it's the 'right' thing to do.

Wow, you've managed to turn stupidity into an art form.

[Hauldren Collider]

I think he is just being obtuse.

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