Compare and contrast
Discussion
Now, regular Phers will be aware that I am no frothing USA basher. But compare and contrast the US Governments handling of the BP oil disaster in the Gulf with how it handles things when a US company causes the death of 20,000+ people through its negligence.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-1191182...
Note the veiled threats.............
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-1191182...
Note the veiled threats.............
When a company can be presented as crapping in its own doorstep (BP is almost as much an American company as it is any other nationality) it will likely be stuffed into cycling some of its cash flow back into the local economy. Much of the Gulf coast area in of the US is not exactly up market and using an event of this kind rather than tax dollars to fund the area for a while must be a very attractive proposition. Better yet the money can be sucked in from other parts of the world so long as you pick on a business with global reach. However you don't want to pick on any that are very cloes to government (like, for example, a Halliburton) or one that, legal, has moved some way out of your jurisdiction (like, for example, a Transocean).
Sucking money out of your economy and pumping it into another economy elsewhere in the world is only worthwhile if so doing provided a lot of power and influence in return. Moreover, if one considers a chemical company of some sort to be a potential cash cow to be activated by some sort of 'chemical spill/deposit' scenario for local funding to support political needs as and when required the last thing you want to have happen is that the company becomes weaker by dishing out money in areas of no influence.
Unless, of course, you are the modern version of GB PLC when, absent any real political power at home, re-distributing the tax take worldwide in an attempt to gain power and influence in areas not totally controlled by others seems to eb the only available game in town. A pretty poor game it has to be said, but if it's the only one you can play ...
Sucking money out of your economy and pumping it into another economy elsewhere in the world is only worthwhile if so doing provided a lot of power and influence in return. Moreover, if one considers a chemical company of some sort to be a potential cash cow to be activated by some sort of 'chemical spill/deposit' scenario for local funding to support political needs as and when required the last thing you want to have happen is that the company becomes weaker by dishing out money in areas of no influence.
Unless, of course, you are the modern version of GB PLC when, absent any real political power at home, re-distributing the tax take worldwide in an attempt to gain power and influence in areas not totally controlled by others seems to eb the only available game in town. A pretty poor game it has to be said, but if it's the only one you can play ...
Edited by LongQ on Saturday 4th December 00:52
Much of this is just our leader making political noise and scoring points.
BP is commited to contribute a mega amount to an escrow fund over a number of years but it can deduct it all from its bottom line in one year (if it wishes, it probably will.) This will save BP mega millions in corp tax.
I'm sure this was all negotiated with the proviso "I'm gonna have to yell at you to make myself look good"
BP is commited to contribute a mega amount to an escrow fund over a number of years but it can deduct it all from its bottom line in one year (if it wishes, it probably will.) This will save BP mega millions in corp tax.
I'm sure this was all negotiated with the proviso "I'm gonna have to yell at you to make myself look good"
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff


