Patterico's Pontifications

6/16/2010

Capitalism and the Oil Spill

Filed under: Economics,Obama — DRJ @ 6:05 am



[Guest post by DRJ]

Jake Tapper recounts how the Obama Administration has changed its position on the BP Oil Spill and solicited assistance from foreign governments:

“Twice since the BP oil spill began in late April the United States has sent notices out from all of its embassies worldwide asking countries if they have certain types of boom, a State Department official tells ABC News. The US also recently began seeking high-speed, high-capacity off-shore skimmers overseas, the official said.”

Tapper clarifies that the U.S. has to pay for most of the products, and only a few of our worldly neighbors are donating their products and assistance. Apparently the world is full of capitalists when it comes to cleaning up the oil spill.

— DRJ

8 Responses to “Capitalism and the Oil Spill”

  1. If everything is paid for, it’s not aid… it’s business. Our State Department is stupid. A sales pitch is not an “offer of assistance”.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  2. Perfect Propeller Head thinking on the part of our State Department and POTUS.

    We give it away, they charge. Now you know why we have such a huge deficit.

    I wish we would simply ban all foreign aid and tell everyone the truth …. “we are broke, you hate us, go ask the Chinese for cash. Good luck

    HeavenSent (a9126d)

  3. I wonder if they consider whether or not union labor was used in the decision-making process, or not-decision-making, as appears to be the case.

    JD (4b684a)

  4. Agreed – you say you don’t wish to donate your time, equipment and expertise? Very well – we will summarily stop patrolling the sea lanes, stand down our armies across the globe and suspend all foreign aid, immediately. I’m sick to death of this kind of taking everything we’ve done for Europe over the past 50 years for granted. Time to start paying up, and hey, what about the accrued interest for the billions expended on the Marshall Plan?

    Dmac (3d61d9)

  5. When I was a volunteer firefighter and we needed assistance from neighboring communities, we could request such under what we called “mutual aid agreements”. The aid provided was not, however, free; and our community would have to pay for the use of those neighboring resources.

    So, I don’t necessary have a problem with calling “aid” that which other nations are willing to sell us.

    The government seems sure that BP is going to pay all of these costs, so why is it that the government is being frugal with BP’s money, but spends our tax dollars like drunken sailors?

    Nathan (136b95)

  6. Any word on the Pakgen situation. I hope the Maine sisters don’t let that get swept under the rug.

    And loaning sweep arms that have to be mounted on ships not designed to use them is nowhere near the same as providing twelve purpose built sweeper vessels which the Dutch did at the begining and were turned down.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  7. So, I don’t necessary[sic] have a problem with calling “aid” that which other nations are willing to sell us.
    Comment by Nathan — 6/16/2010 @ 7:46 am

    Except the definition changes when it’s us giving aid to other countries. What would the response be if we charged them for the materials and services, then tried to call it “aid”? We would be the “evil capitalists profiteering from a disaster” (that we would then be blamed for causing). From the post:

    Apparently the world is full of capitalists when it comes to cleaning up the oil spill.

    My point exactly.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  8. There was a news report that the Pakgen booms had failed a QC test.

    Has Obama waived the Jones Act yet?

    AD - RtR/OS! (eef339)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0847 secs.