SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (44351)7/28/2010 11:45:28 AM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 

Re: [So let's change that from 'little incentive' to 'LESS incentive'....] "That doesn't really work"

If you are trying to sell me on your contention that the federal liability cap on off-shore oil drilling is 'not any kind of incentive' to oil drilling, is not a taxpayer assumption of LIABILITY RISK that directly benefits the industry then you can STOP right now and save your breathe --- 'cause I ain't EVER gonna 'buy' that particular snake oil.

I wasn't saying such a thing, and your quote from my post doesn't equal, imply, or suggest, such point. So your response is a non-sequitur.

The point is that your earlier statement about "little incentive" is flat our false, since the incentive is massive. A cap that lowers it would mean there was less incentive. But "less", and "little" are two different points. Also since the cap often doesn't apply, its not really "less", but just "potentially less", since the cost the company pays will in many cases not be reduced at all by the cap.

Even though your response was totally off point, I'll address it anyway. The cap isn't a taxpayer assumption of liability. It might result in such assumption happening but it isn't itself such an assumption. A cap on liability can exist and be applied without the government taking over a single penny of the costs. What would happen is that those who where clearly and directly harmed to a greater degree than the cap would take their losses without full recompense. I'm not suggesting that should be the policy, merely pointing out that government assumption of the cost of providing compensation is a separate action from capping liability. Because of that fact your response isn't only irrelevant to the point, its also incorrect.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News