Fungible Shmungible. Of course a boycott will do some damage.

[Bonobo]

Okay, we have seen the word fungible thrown around a lot. I think people like the word because it makes it easy to sound like you know something other people don't.

So let's just discuss it and not throw around words like 'fungible' and then be unwilling to actually examine the implications.

What does fungible mean:

fungible |ˈfənjəbəl|
adjective Law
(of goods contracted for without an individual specimen being specified) able to replace or be replaced by another identical item; mutually interchangeable : money is fungible—money that is raised for one purpose can easily be used for another.
DERIVATIVES
fungibility |ˌfənjəˈbilətē| noun
ORIGIN late 17th cent.: from medieval Latin fungibilis, from fungi ‘perform, enjoy,’ with the same sense as fungi vice ‘serve in place of.’

Oh, okay, I get it. So the argument is that if we don't buy it from BP directly, they will simply sell their oil to a middle person who will then sell the same thing to us, right? OK, so far, we are in complete agreement.

BUT, and this is a huge but, if consumers exercised their (admittedly) limited power to choose where to buy their oil and gas from, they would cut into BP's profit margins because when BP sells their oil to another party, they receive a lower profit margin per barrel of oil. Does anyone disagree? SO, now the argument that "There is no way to boycott BP" is starting to look a little less rock-solid, isn't it?
To what degree would a consumer boycott effect BP? I do not know and neither do the people weighing in on the issue. But I will tell you this: It will have an impact other than the direct one as wel.. Simply the talk of a boycott has an effect on them. The price of their shares could be impacted as just one example.

Now, let's look at the downside of boycotting BP. urely there is a massive downside -not just that it would be pointless - that is driving all of this screaming from the criers of "fungible! fungible! It's fungible, dummies!"
So what are the downsides?.......
.......... ......... .......... ......... ........ ......... .......... ......... .......... ......... ........ ......... .......... ......... .......... ......... ........ ......... .......... ......... .......... ......... ........ ......... .......... ......... .......... ......... ........ ......... .......... ......... .......... ......... ........

Waiting for an answer? Well there are no downsides that come to mind to me anyway. Can someone here tell me why NOT to try and boycott other than the fact that some people say it makes us look and sound silly?

For those who STILL think I am just frothing at the mouth and spouting bullshit, can you tell me why reducing thier direct sales and thus their profit margin would NOT be a reasonable action to take? Why it would have no effect?

[Oregone]

1. Impossible!

Stop baiting me. Impossible I say!

[Hosnon]

2. If you think the problem is BP, then you have a point.

And if your goal is safer petroleum use, you have another point.

But a boycott of one oil company designed to improve safety standards does not address the actual and more problematic issue.

P.S. The boycott harms all the individuals whose livelihoods flow from BP, like the family that owns your local BP station.

[backscatter712]

32. Tough shit for the gas station owner.

If he puts a BP sign on his gas station and does business with BP, he's part of the problem. I've got no sympathy.

[Hosnon]

35. Newsflash: If you do nothing more than go to a non-BP gas station,

you're just as much a part of the problem as the gas station owner.

It's bullshit for any of us to try to claim the petroleum high road. Your attitude is what is so fucking stupid about a BP boycott.

[backscatter712]

36. I'm riding my bike a lot these days.

The weather's nice, I need the exercise, and I burn zero gas.

[Hosnon]

37. Then you actually deserve some kudos.

I'll admit that I haven't changed my lifestyle at all. But I know that boycotting BP won't do much good.

Instead, I'm working towards my 5 year goal of moving into an apartment building powered completely by hydro and purchasing a 100% electric car.

[fishwax]

3. for the record, BP also gets a cut of all the pop, candy, beer, etc., sold at BP stores

[XemaSab]

4. Seriously, FUCK BP

n/t

[Oregone]

5. Im not sure theyve done anything most other amoral corporations wouldn't have done

They just get the opportunity to drill deep, and let their practices fuck the world over hard. If McDonald's was in drilling, don't think they would of avoided disaster, and don't think they would of soaked up the oil by making free fries for impoverished families.

[XemaSab]

12. This is all true

but seriously, FUCK BP.

[Hosnon]

6. Biggest downside: Complacency.

Boycotters will feel like they're doing their part...and do nothing more.

[Mojeoux]

7. K & Effing R

[Mojeoux]

8. K & Effing R

[Berry Cool]

9. I really do not think you get it.

It is not a matter of "if we don't buy it from BP directly, they will simply sell their oil to a middle person who will then sell the same thing to us." No. See, the thing is, all their oil goes into a common international oil pool FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. It's not like they're trying to sell directly to us now and, if they find us boycotting them, they will begin selling their oil to a third party. No. Their oil is already being combined with everyone else's oil to sell to us so no one knows what the original source of anyone's oil is. This is nothing new, either. It is just the way things are.

Another point, which I've made before, is that one of BP's products is materials for the packaging industry. And you really have no way of knowing whether something you buy is packaged in packaging for which BP provided the materials or not. So you can't boycott BP's non-oil products effectively, either.

[Mojeoux]

10. We must get Greedy with Green

We can be the best Greenies in the world.

[Bonobo]

13. Even if that s true, it doesn't change the central point.

Which is that BP makes a higher profit margin when it sells directly through its outlets.

Also, there is BP's visible reputation to consider.

Shoot one, warn a thousand.

[TexasObserver]

11. Of course it will! The arguments against a boycott are naive.

[jobycom]

14. I thought that was a brand of onion rings. Anyway, here's why boycotting is dumb.

You boycott the BP station and go to the one across the street. Say you get enough people to give a damn, and soon there's a line at the Conoco. Meanwhile, a whole bunch of people who normally shop at Conoco say "Hey, what's with the line? No matter, we'll go over here to BP to fill up and buy the beer."

Even if all 10K or so people who wander through DU decide to boycott, that's a drop in the bucket. They lose that many people every day from out of order pumps. Not to mention, not all of us even live where we can go to a BP if we wanted to.

Although, I will say I was on the Coast a couple weekends ago, and I passed a couple of BPs that had tumbleweeds blowing through them. No one shopped there at all. Sadly, these were all locally owned franchises, so it really was only hurting a local small business owners.

And in case you're curious, I don't shop at BP, because there aren't any out here, and from what I've seen of the list, there aren't any BP products I buy, anyway. When I go to the Coast, which is every other month or so, I can boycott them, but seriously that's going to cost them about 30 bucks, total.

After the Valdez spill, I didn't stop at an Exxon for decades. They are still around. Being from Gulfport, and having all my family from New Orleans, I probably won't stop at a BP for a while to come. But that's not going to hurt them.

The only way we are going to stop such accidents in the future is by electing people who will regulate and enforce. Any company will do what it can get away with, and while that doesn't excuse it, to me it puts the burden on the government. A Rotweiller can do a lot of harm to a small child because the Rotweiller is a big dog that doesn't know any better. When a Rottie attacks a kid, I blame the person who was supposed to keep the pooch under control. Even if we drove BP out of business, others would just do what they are doing. Because they can. We need to stop them from being able to, and a boycott won't do that.

It's late, I'm rambling. I'm just tired of simplistic solutions, I guess. Everyone wants to persecute someone, everyone wants revenge. The simple fact is that it takes a strong government to prevent these types of things. We need to quit voting for people who makes us feel all good inside, and vote for people who know what the hell they are doing. Both sets of voters piss me off right now--those who picked Bush, and those who think the answer is a progressive who will remove corporate personhood or whatever myth and misunderstanding they have. I want someone who can handle corporations, not someone who treats corporations the way Republicans treat government. People who hate corporations can't control them any more than Republicans can run the federal government. I'm pissed at both of them, now. I'm pissed at everyone. Boycott all you want--I guess I am, even if that's not what I call it--but don't think it matters. Do it out of conscience, but that doesn't excuse anyone from voting for the most viable liberal candidate in every race from now on.

[Bonobo]

15. So in other words, not much upside but not much downside.

That is what I, too, suspect.

However, that is a far cry from a reason to start posts telling people they are assholes or dimwits for expressing a desire to boycott, to exercise the limited power of their own wallets and to act in accordance with their consciences.

It just irritates me to hear know-it-alls telling people, condescendingly, that it is "impossible because oil is fungible, stupid!"

The implication of half of your reply is that a larger boycott WOULD have an effect.

Thanks for your considered reply.

[jobycom]

16. Pretty much. I don't see where "half" my post implied a boycott would have an effect.

Unless you just mean the line about shutting down local businesses, but that wouldn't hurt BP at all. Still, yeah, you're right, I'm saying it won't help or hurt, it's really a matter of spending money on what you believe in.

This place is full of "know-it-alls telling people, condescendlingly" any number of things, usually on both sides of the issue. Heck, I'm probably doing it now. That's why I usually hang out in the Lounge--I can talk to people with world-outlooks like mine about everyday things without all the posturing and circular arguing. I answered your post because you made a good argument and put some thought into it, and it made me think, and that used to be why I came here. :) I don't mind fighting viciously with people, if they have a point and will also listen to other people's. I just hate fighting with people who want to state their opinion and yell at anyone who disagrees. I just put one of those people on ignore a few minutes ago, actually.

[Berry Cool]

25. I wish I could dip these words of yours in gold:

"I want someone who can handle corporations, not someone who treats corporations the way Republicans treat government. People who hate corporations can't control them any more than Republicans can run the federal government. I'm pissed at both of them, now. I'm pissed at everyone. Boycott all you want--I guess I am, even if that's not what I call it--but don't think it matters. Do it out of conscience, but that doesn't excuse anyone from voting for the most viable liberal candidate in every race from now on."

Exactly. If anyone out is there criticizing Obama for how he's handled this (and I have), but is doing so by calling him a corporatist, and believes Kucinich would have done better, you are dreaming. Kucinich is so ANTI-corporate that he would have made an even worse mess of things. He proved that as mayor of Cleveland. True, he saved the municipal electric company, but he did it only by pissing off every bank in town and sending the city into default. I'm no fan of banks, especially given what we're going through now in this country, but a wiser man would have been able to work with the banks and the private power company to arrive at a solution to the situation, not just stubbornly postured about being the guy "standing up for the people against the corporate fatcats." If you really want to stand up for the people, you need to do it without so pissing off the corporate fatcats that they decide that whatever they do, at the very least, they will find a way to punish and humiliate you and everyone else they want to steamroller over when they can't get their way. If you play your cards right, you can hoodwink them into thinking you're their BFF at the same time as you are reading them the riot act. "Come, let us reason together."

Kucinich doesn't know how to handle corporations any more than Obama does. He just would've failed at it in a different way. So even if he were electable, he would not have been desirable.

Dems don't need anti-corporate candidates. They need candidates who are capable of both recognizing the fact that corporations are here to stay (because this country is not going to go back to a simple agrarian economy anytime soon and most people really don't want to make like the Unabomber and take off to live off the grid in the woods) and, at the same time, smoothly, diplomatically draw the line with them when they get out of hand, and protect the people's interests.

[TheKentuckian]

33. You live in a dream. Unfettered greed cannot be negotiated with

nor outmaneuvered over any protracted period of time.

You also present a false choice of the status quo and an agrarian society.

How about the simple step of changing the scope and protections of the legal constructs known as corporate charters? Or even not recognizing such instruments, if need be?

We are in a multi-layered mess that won't be escaped by playing friends and token modifications. The corporations operate in the area that is across the line at this point.

There will be no modification of the status quo that allows the people's interests to be taken care of.

[Maru Kitteh]

17. It's really this simple: If a boycott would do no harm - if consumer opinion of BP had no effect

they would not spend the vast fortunes that they have trying to salvage their reputation.

They wouldn't have spent all those millions for YEARS on those feel good, "we're so darn green we barely even like oil anymore," BEYOND Petroleum ads.

If we could have no effect, they would have no reason to keep telling us how they are totally going to pay all those "legitimate" claims in a jiff, and how they love the little birds while they burn the sea turtles alive.

[William Z. Foster]

18. exactly

Well said.

BP has been busy the last few years "partnering" with all of the major environmental activist groups and funding them lavishly. Those same groups sure are silent and completely AWOL these days. The betrayals go on and on.

[Scuba]

20. They don't advertise to get us to buy gas at stations with their logo....

...they do it because targets of their advertising my well be on the jury when they're tried for their crimes.

[TreasonousBastard]

19. BP has been dumping its company owned gas stations, and will own...

none in a year or two. A successful boycott of the brand would simply drive independant businesses, which have nothing to do with BP management or the Gulf mess, into bankruptcy

Being the third largest oil company, they WILL sell their crude, their product, and their chemical feedstocks as long as we keep buying. And it makes no difference who we buy it from-- they will be there. We might be able to raise enough fuss so airlines would claim to buy from someone else, but no cargo ship will ask us who to buy bunkers from, and no trucking fleet or tugboat will ask us either.

Besides, boycotts aren't easy to organize anyway. If they were, you would be able to name a list of successful ones.

Is everyone up for a boycott willing to cut their gasoline and heating oil consumption 10%? Never use a plastic bag at the supermarket? Never buy any product that contains plastic or any one of the thousands of products made from oil or natural gas?

No? Why not? Could it be that that sort of thing is more work than a useless symbolic feelgood gesture like a boycott against a brand?

[Obamanaut]

21. The convenience store where I go regularly for coffee is not BP,

but it does have the name of the chain it belongs to, as well as all the logos and signage of another oil company.

The owner of that chain has a whole lot of convenience stores, all with same chain name, but with a variety of oil company signage. In one spot, he has two stores less than a mile apart, sporting different oil company signage.

I have observed fuel being delivered to the one I frequent in trucks bearing the company logo only, in other trucks bearing the same logo as that on the station itself, and other trucks with neither. This third variety of truck sports a name simply stating it is carrying petroleum.

One does not know where the fuel being pumped into ones car comes from. If no one goes to this guy's store that has BP signage (he has several of them), and gas he doesn't sell will simply go to another store. The chain owner is not being hurt, only the minimum wage clerks who will have their hours cut due to a slight reduction in store sales volume.

[Scuba]

24. Nailed it. Punishing the innocent.

[leftupnorth]

22. When you boycott BP gas stations

All you're doing is hurting local businesses. Most gas stations don't make a whole lot on their gasoline sales, and many don't even buy their gasoline from BP, and the station owners pay about $2500+/- a year for the logos on the pumps and signs.

It would be better to tell the station owners that you'll become a loyal customer if they change their station branding to something else and boycott BP solar panels and BP branded motor oil.

I know it feels good, and I support the idea of a boycott, but in this case, it's hurting the wrong people.

[Scuba]

23. Agreed. Punishing the innocent.

[Laelth]

26. I agree. A boycott does do some good.

If it didn't, there wouldn't be an army of people telling us not to do it. Yes, some mostly-innocent merchants will get hurt, but it will also send a powerful message.

:dem:

-Laelth

[leftupnorth]

27. It would be more powerful if people would just not buy gas

but continue to buy in-store items like food and beverages. And voice your opinion to the clerk that you would love to buy gas from them if the weren't a BP branded station.

If we can get the independent owners to re-brand, that would send a much more powerful message to BP than any feeble boycott would ever dream of doing.

[Laelth]

28. If the boycott is successful, they will have to re-brand.

And I agree. That will send a very powerful message to would-be eco-terrorists.

:dem:

-Laelth

[leftupnorth]

29. I think many independent stations will as soon as their contracts are up.

I know a couple people who own BP branded c-stores and they plan on re-branding as soon as they can without getting penalized for breaking their branding contract with BP.

This is just because they're well aware that BP's image is severely damaged and they don't want to be associated with them any longer.

All with ZERO consumer pressure.

[fascisthunter]

30. I'm boycotting BP

those invested in the company will have to suffer. Time for hard decisions people, don't allow BP to hold you hostage by some claims on this thread regarding locally employed. Time for folks to stop sucking on that fetid tit.

[1Hippiechick]

31. People are overlooking the impact of BRAND DAMAGE and impact on future franchise purchases n/t

[TheKentuckian]

34. No reason to get mad when being advised to take action that will be more effective

in reaching a goal or to let you know that an action will have a very limited impact.

Boycotts work because you hit them in the wallet, if you miss the wallet then it's just something to feel good.

Rock on if you like but you aren't hitting the target or may get very glancing blows.

BP should be taken over or banned from the country but there is no "market solution" other than stock destruction to break them up.

I'm a boycott kinda kat but there's no sense being mad if structural flaws to the effectiveness of such an action are pointed out, as frustrating as that "untouchable" factor is. Truth is that if every station was run out of existence that they'd still be one of the most profitable companies in the world.

[MellowDem]

38. Downsides....

Many BP gas station owners are local retailers. That is who you would hurt the most. Period.

Also, Oil companies make very little of their profit from gas stations. It's like a drop in the ocean... seriously.... of their profit.

So, if you think a boycott that mostly hurts working class people and won't even be like a mosquito bite to BP is a good thing... then go ahead and boycott.

Meanwhile, the other gas stations you go to that get their gas from other super oil giants really aren't any different from BP. They're just not as unlucky lately in terms of an accident off of the American shore. As many people know, the other oil giants have had incredibly devestating spills in other "third world" nations, but you don't see anyone on here trying to boycott them. Not that boycotting gas stations does much anyways.

So, boycotting only BP comes across as incredibally foolish in terms of effectiveness and rather illogical in terms of boycotting one company because it happens off of your country's coast but not others.

Not to mention the fact that the real problem here is the lack of government oversight.

[WeDidIt]

39. What you call "damage" is so insignificant

it won't even be a blip on an accountant's spread sheet.

The whole purpose of your phony "boycott" is to make yourself feel all warm and fuzzy.

So go ahead. Knock yourself out. Enjoy the warm fuzzy feeling then go down the street, buy some Citgo gas, and continue contributing to BP's bottom line.