2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum Message Board

STOCKTALK

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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum

GLD 368.29

+0.6%

Nov 7 4:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (96811)	11/30/2012 11:29:07 AM
From: GPS Info	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) of 217576

This is funny in a way. I asked if you understood the difference between our points, but it is now clear that you do not understand. For the hell of it, I’ll restate my point: People who receive entitlements should not dismiss the associated costs of those benefits. Spending more money on safety does not necessarily make people safer. This is irrelevant to my point. Even if BP had a perfect safety record and the accident was well beyond their control (laughable, I know), the price of the environmental damage and cleanup is an associated cost of providing oil into the world market. This is a cost associated with providing a profit to the company, a dividend to the stockholders and a pension to the retirees. These costs should not be dismissed, especially by anyone benefiting from the business of oil extraction.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next