Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (90612)	9/8/2010 3:03:34 PM
From: TimF	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224718

Sure there is. At least a couple of the drilling rigs have already left because they couldn't work. There goes the jobs from the workers on the rigs, and likely some support jobs (and perhaps indirectly more jobs because these people don't act as consumers for other businesses, but its true we don't, and probably can't, have any proof about that type of indirect effect, only the relatively direct losses) --- More generally see The Dangers of Overreacting to the Deepwater Horizon Disaster By Kenneth P. Green, Steven F. Hayward \| AEI Online aei.org Message 26641361

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (90612)	9/8/2010 4:02:01 PM
From: tonto	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224718

Huh? You may want to read the following... The Obama administration planned on 10s of thousands of job losses. The Obama Administration has filed some 27,000 pages of documents in Federal court which disclose the process by which it decided to forge ahead with a deepwater drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico, in spite of expert advice, public opinion and a Federal judge’s ruling. The documents also show that the Administration stonewalled a U.S. Senator’s request for information, a point apparently lost on the mainstream press. They show that the bureaucracy contemplated a de facto moratorium: since the bureaucracy has the power of the permit, who needs a moratorium? And they also show that ignorance (willful or otherwise) caused them to grossly misrepresent the economic impact of the moratorium to the court. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, the Administration forged ahead with plans to stop all drilling in water depths over 500 feet until November 30, even though its own estimates showed the ban would cost some 23,000 jobs. [The documents] show the new top regulator or offshore oil exploration, Michael Bromwich, told Interior Secretary Ken Salazar that a six-month deepwater-drilling halt would result in “lost direct employment” affecting approximately 9,450 workers and “lost jobs from indirect and induced effects” affecting about 13,797 more. The July 10 memo cited an analysis by Mr. Bromwich’s agency that assumed direct employment on affected rigs would “resume normally once the rigs resume operations.” There is no proof of any job loss from the moratorium.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (90612)	9/8/2010 5:11:43 PM
From: tonto	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224718

Wrong. Unemployment claims show that hundreds of jobs were lost. Of course jobs were lost...why do you make this stuff up? Unemployment claims related to the oil industry along the Gulf Coast have been in the hundreds, not the thousands, and while oil production from the gulf is down because of the drilling halt, supplies from the region are expected to rebound in future years. There is no proof of any job loss from the moratorium.