Rarely are the machinations of the Corporate State laid so bare as here:
Apparently, it's OK by Republicans - as well as some Democrats - for the little people who took on too much risk (often in the form of subprime loans) in the financial markets to have their liability unlimited, and take it on the chin when things go bad. But it's not OK for a small or medium-sized oil company to face unlimited liability when they take risks that go bad. Then it's OK for the government to bail them out for a potentially unlimited amount. That's called "socialism", isn't it? Or is it only socialist if Obama proposed it?
How many small and medium-sized oil companies are there that could face liability for a spill? Does it matter - isn't that what insurance is for? If I can't get insurance for my car because of my driving record, why should the government for me to effectively insure Big Problems Oil for an unlimited amount over $75 million dollars? Without them even so much as paying a premium?
Fact is, all legal liability limits are direct attacks on the free market - they effectively force risky products and behaviors in the marketplace when they couldn't survive the risk on their own. Nuclear power plants have government imposed liability limits, otherwise there'd be no nuclear power plants. So called "tort reform" is a thinly disguised liability limit. All backed primarily by the Party of Small Government and Freedom™.
It just flabbergasts me still, even though I should know better by now, to see "staunch defenders of the free market" stand up and so blatantly try to squash any free market that dare rear it's ugly head. They're no better than the socialists across the aisle.
Republicans — as well as some Democrats — say it's a bad idea to have unlimited liability for oil disasters. They say only the biggest oil companies have the assets to take on such risk, while small and medium-sized firms would be shut out.
22:25 /Politics | 0 comments | permanent link