Actually, Obama CAN Take Over A British Corporation And Force It To Make Hard Decisions

[AllentownJake]

Q: Is this realistic?

A: Not only realistic but it may become necessary — both operationally and politically. If the disaster continues to worsen, it’s untenable for a for-profit corporation to be in charge.

Q: But why should we expect government to do any better job than BP?

A: BP would still be at the job — and its expertise, equipment, and other assets would continue to be utilized. But the federal government would be in overall control of the operation — weighing public risks and benefits, deciding what resources are necessary, getting accurate information and disseminating it to the public.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/actually-obama-can-take-over-a-british-corporation-and-force-it-to-make-hard-decisions-2010-6#ixzz0phWAp7MN

Robert Reich in response to his earlier editorial.

We are waiting Mr. President.

[dipsydoodle]

1. Well if the thought of that keeps you happy,

and posting it here implies that it would, then dream on.

Even the headline is misleading. The only thing British about British Petroleum is a the fact it contains the name British - its world's fourth largest International company.

[pampango]

4. The last figures I saw ownership of BP is 40% British, 39% US, and 21% other nationalities.

What Obama can and should do is important regardless of the nationality of a corporation's owners or what country's name happens to be in its title.

[dipsydoodle]

6. Like I said

it's an International company. You just listed share ownership. 40% registered in the UK don't make it a UK company.

Would you rather China just bought it outright and nationalised it ? They could afford to do so using their reserves which at March 2010 stood at US$ 2447,1 billion.

[AllentownJake]

7. At the end of the day

Laws exist at the end of a bayonette. Rule of law is a funny thing like that. Ask Coca Cola about their assets in Cuba. ;-)

[nashville_brook]

2. it's a matter of accountability. BP's is to their shareholders (by law).

"And it will cut corners — as it has before — if that’s the best way to maximize the value of their shares. But only the government, through the President, is directly accountable to the American public, and responsible for protecting it."

[blindpig]

3. Expropriate without compensation

[treestar]

5. If the government took me over when something had gone wrong

They would not know what to do - not even to lead the process - what it would take is someone else in the same profession.

[Angry Dragon]

15. If I undertand correctly

the OP was stating that the government would be making the decisions and telling bp what to do.

The government would be talking to other oil concerns and other experts and not letting bp get to decide what is best for bp and not this country. It is the job of government to protect its people and borders and they are not doing that at this time.

[HughMoran]

8. "may become necessary" "we are waiting Mr. President"

:rofl:

[AllentownJake]

10. Hey you engineers are doing a heck of a job

You guys create problems you can't solve than pat yourself on the back.

Holder was a nice touch yesterday, that being said, a firmer hand is going to be needed with the CEO whining about wanting his life back.

[HughMoran]

11. Yeah, his ass-kicking time is coming soon

I think many are crossing their fingers that they can get a '90%' solution going before long, then kick ass.

[AllentownJake]

12. I hope they get there

and either way, I hope he has Holder indict the lot of them and holds the over night in Gulf Federal prisons for arraignment.

[joeybee12]

9. No, no, no! We MUST bury our heads in the sand...we must claim to be powerless!

No, we can't...no, we can't!

[izzybeans]

13. I heard an argument this morning against it. thought it semi-persuasive.

If they are serious about limiting the economic damages cap and they took over BP at this point, the government would undermine the legal cases of claims-makers because it would give fuel for BPs lawyers to claim the government failed to clean-up, when they, the glorious market organization, had the expertise. The question then becomes, why take charge of a lost cause and shield the responsible party from blame?

I can see how that could play in court. Not sure it is entirely convincing, but it is possibly the one valid reason to let this ride. It is a very cold calculation, but a lawyer with the interests of his clients at heart may make such a decision. I think it assumes the fisheries and beaches can not be saved and have to be cleaned up post-gusher plug.

[Angry Dragon]

14. He could invoke National Security concerns

they do it for everything else