Plutocracy in Action.

[Audley Strange]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22549710

BP go begging to Cameron to help them reduce the paying damages and compensation to U.S. businesses and individuals after the Gulf of Mexico shambles. Some brash fuckers I'll give them that.

[Mysturji]

They wouldn't have needed to go begging if their price-fixing scheme hadn't been rumbled.

[JimC]

I've always liked the phrase "bloated plutocrats"

[Mysturji]

I've always liked the phrase "bloated plutocrats"

Don't let Twofy hear you say that

[En_Route]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22549710

BP go begging to Cameron to help them reduce the paying damages and compensation to U.S. businesses and individuals after the Gulf of Mexico shambles. Some brash fuckers I'll give them that.

The BBC reports suggest that the magnitude of the payouts is down to the lax terms of the settlement imprudently agreed by BP. However, that was a commercial judgement on the part of BP and if they have, as seems to be the case, so royally screwed up that the company may be taken over, then that is capitalism for you. . What basis there might be for the US government to set aside or modify binding contracts eludes me.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Audley Strange]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22549710

BP go begging to Cameron to help them reduce the paying damages and compensation to U.S. businesses and individuals after the Gulf of Mexico shambles. Some brash fuckers I'll give them that.

The BBC reports suggest that the magnitude of the payouts is down to the lax terms of the settlement imprudently agreed by BP. However, that was a commercial judgement on the part of BP and if they have, as seems to be the case, so royally screwed up that the company may be taken over, then that is capitalism for you. . What basis there might be for the US government to set aside or modify binding contracts eludes me.

Yes, quite. This is why I keep saying there is a difference between plutocrats and capitalists.

[Svartalf]

I've always liked the phrase "bloated plutocrats"

Don't let Twofy hear you say that

Who's Master of her?

[Seth]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22549710

BP go begging to Cameron to help them reduce the paying damages and compensation to U.S. businesses and individuals after the Gulf of Mexico shambles. Some brash fuckers I'll give them that.

The BBC reports suggest that the magnitude of the payouts is down to the lax terms of the settlement imprudently agreed by BP. However, that was a commercial judgement on the part of BP and if they have, as seems to be the case, so royally screwed up that the company may be taken over, then that is capitalism for you. . What basis there might be for the US government to set aside or modify binding contracts eludes me.

Public interest. If the magnitude of the fines will bankrupt the company there will be a major negative effect on fuel prices and supplies worldwide that would likely far outstrip the benefits of the settlement.

[En_Route]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22549710

BP go begging to Cameron to help them reduce the paying damages and compensation to U.S. businesses and individuals after the Gulf of Mexico shambles. Some brash fuckers I'll give them that.

The BBC reports suggest that the magnitude of the payouts is down to the lax terms of the settlement imprudently agreed by BP. However, that was a commercial judgement on the part of BP and if they have, as seems to be the case, so royally screwed up that the company may be taken over, then that is capitalism for you. . What basis there might be for the US government to set aside or modify binding contracts eludes me.

Public interest. If the magnitude of the fines will bankrupt the company there will be a major negative effect on fuel prices and supplies worldwide that would likely far outstrip the benefits of the settlement.

Certainly in the UK , the State could not intervene to overturn a contract simply because it recoiled from the wider economic ramifications. The public interest would not be well served in fact if the State were to act in such an arbitrary fashion.

[Seth]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22549710

BP go begging to Cameron to help them reduce the paying damages and compensation to U.S. businesses and individuals after the Gulf of Mexico shambles. Some brash fuckers I'll give them that.

The BBC reports suggest that the magnitude of the payouts is down to the lax terms of the settlement imprudently agreed by BP. However, that was a commercial judgement on the part of BP and if they have, as seems to be the case, so royally screwed up that the company may be taken over, then that is capitalism for you. . What basis there might be for the US government to set aside or modify binding contracts eludes me.

Public interest. If the magnitude of the fines will bankrupt the company there will be a major negative effect on fuel prices and supplies worldwide that would likely far outstrip the benefits of the settlement.

Certainly in the UK , the State could not intervene to overturn a contract simply because it recoiled from the wider economic ramifications. The public interest would not be well served in fact if the State were to act in such an arbitrary fashion.

I call bullshit. You do realize that's EXACTLY what happened with General Motors. Obama decided it would cause him to lose too many votes (his interest, not really public but still...) with the unions if he did not unconstitutionally seize control of General Motors and defraud the secured bond-holders who were, by law, entitled to the first bite at the bankruptcy apple. They got NOTHING, and some of them went bankrupt as a result.

Don't tell me your government wouldn't seize control of BP and fend off bankruptcy if it became likely to happen, because it would, I don't doubt it for a moment.

[En_Route]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22549710

BP go begging to Cameron to help them reduce the paying damages and compensation to U.S. businesses and individuals after the Gulf of Mexico shambles. Some brash fuckers I'll give them that.

The BBC reports suggest that the magnitude of the payouts is down to the lax terms of the settlement imprudently agreed by BP. However, that was a commercial judgement on the part of BP and if they have, as seems to be the case, so royally screwed up that the company may be taken over, then that is capitalism for you. . What basis there might be for the US government to set aside or modify binding contracts eludes me.

Public interest. If the magnitude of the fines will bankrupt the company there will be a major negative effect on fuel prices and supplies worldwide that would likely far outstrip the benefits of the settlement.

Certainly in the UK , the State could not intervene to overturn a contract simply because it recoiled from the wider economic ramifications. The public interest would not be well served in fact if the State were to act in such an arbitrary fashion.

I call bullshit. You do realize that's EXACTLY what happened with General Motors. Obama decided it would cause him to lose too many votes (his interest, not really public but still...) with the unions if he did not unconstitutionally seize control of General Motors and defraud the secured bond-holders who were, by law, entitled to the first bite at the bankruptcy apple. They got NOTHING, and some of them went bankrupt as a result.

Don't tell me your government wouldn't seize control of BP and fend off bankruptcy if it became likely to happen, because it would, I don't doubt it for a moment.

I was talking about the UK position and about the State's inability to retrospectively rewrite contracts between third parties. Insolvencies and bail- outs that take us into different territory. Here the UK would be constrained by The EU State Aid provisions amongst others, so a bail- out would be unlikely I think. In any case if the company went bust in the absence of a bail- out, the unsecured creditors would pick up most if not all of the tab in the natural order of things.