Ben Stein "Why should BP shareholders be punished?" Doesn't understand capitalilsm

[grantcart]

Ben Stein graduated from Economics at Columbia University.

Ben Stein continually demonstrates that a mind filled with data and information at one of the country's finest education institution can in fact be completely oblivious to the most basic fundamental principles of the subject matter that they claim to have mastered and in fact get paid to offer expert opinions on national TV.

Stein, more than others, has demonstrated a rather wide scope of trivia in defending the pot when playing "Win Ben Stein's Money".

He then demonstrates that he doesn't understand basic elements of modern knowledge by opening his mouth and speaking.

Of course the most embarassingly and painful of these statements is his opinion that evolution is "an argument for Imperialism" and an inspiration for the Holocaust. Stein can be excused for playing the idiot on science issues because he studied economics and not science.

It is in his most recent statements on BP that he exposes how incredibly stupid he really is.

Here is the transcript from CNN Larry King:

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1005/26/lkl.01.html

STEIN: I don't know if it's trillions. I'm not sure there are any trillion-dollar companies but it's a very, very large company and it will be sued and it has insurance and it has reinsurance. And the risk will be spread all over the place.

But at the end of the day, if somebody knew something like this was likely to happen and just said, keep pumping like mad, I think there may be criminal liability.

I have always felt that if someone does something seriously bad a criminal sanction is better than a sanction on the stockholders.

Look, I'm a stockholder of BP through mutual funds. You are, I'm sure, too. I'm sure most of your viewers are in their retirement fund. Why should we be punished? Why shouldn't it be people who actually were there on the watch and made the mistake be put in prison if they did it criminally negligently?

If you feel this seems like a very Nixonian response then it is interesting to note that Ben's farther was a major player in the Nixon White House and probably heard that it was right for 'Haldeman and the rest of them to go to prison (especially Liddy) but why punish the rest of us'.

But Steins lamantWhy should we be punished? gives an even better documented demonstration of the idiocy of Ben Stein than the ridiculous "Expelled: No Intellilgence Allowed" and that is no small achievement.

So here is why, Mr. Stein, the shareholders of BP should be punished.

The whole system of capitalism is based on taking surplus capital and placing at risk. By placing it at risk in a company the shareholder may get huge rewards (see Gates, Jobs et al) by exploiting a relatively small amount of capital and by making critical decisions captivate market share and huge profits.

Also by placing it at risk you may lose all of the money that you invested (see Enron et al).

The reason for this is that the shareholders are not passive participants. As a shareholder you are making active decisions. You decided on what kind of a board of directors you want to represent you. Do you want a bunch of "yes" men/women who simply want to search out a "Gordon Gekko" pay him tens of millions of dollars a year and try and exploit the environment, the workers, customers and make the quickest profit.

As a shareholder you decided not to include a significant representation of environmentalists, union leaders, engineers on the board of directors. The board of directors did not pay any attention to their quality control departments, instituting an ISO 9000 system, or consider the tremendous exposure of working in a delicate environment.

The answer to your question Why should we be punished? is simple:


The Shareholders of BP made poor decisions in electing a board to represent their interests. The Board hired an incompetent CEO and senior management. The board took a narrow perspective of the role of the company.

Because the shareholders made poor decisions they are now going to pay for their decisions.

When you talk of the poor you go on about how they are poor because of their "poor decisions" when in fact most of the time they never have the real ability to make economic decisions and are simply trying to survive.

You, and the other shareholders of BP, on the other hand had the luxury of a good education and a family that has the benefit of the elites, your father worked at the White House for god sake.

So stop crying about Shareholder loss.

This is the basic rule of capitalism and I know that they covered it in your Economics 101. You select bad directors, hire bad CEOs and fuck up tens of millions of people, create an environmental Hiroshima, expect that your company will spend the next 10 years in court and that your share will drop through the basement.

(But I agree with you that we should send some of those executives to jail but because you didn't get the basic question right you still don't get to keep "Ben Stein's Money".)

[katandmoon]

1. K&R

[Hello_Kitty]

2. I would say he has a point about criminal sanctions being better than economic ones but,

If they're only facing a criminal penalty, no matter how harsh, there have to be persons to charge with the crime. They'll pin the whole thing on some underlings and claim plausible deniability up the chain, even if subordinates were acting under the expectation handed down to them from the top. Going after the pocketbook is the only real way we have at our disposal to punish the company.

[quakerboy]

14. No good reason

Both shouldn't apply.

[pundaint]

59. Both must apply, indeed! Do we have the will to fire those who wont exhibit the will to ensure this

never happens again?

[Pharaoh]

91. why should we even

allow private ownership of such resources?
K&R

[The Magistrate]

3. Hear Hear, Sir!

The system depends on people losing their capital when make poor decisions about where to place it....

[grantcart]

9. Good to see you back in good form, Sir.

[ProudDad]

67. EXACTLY!!!

Long time, no see... :hi:

[juajen]

96. Indeed, it is great to see the Magistrate in his usual form. DU would

be so boring without him and a lot less informative!

[depakid]

4. This post should be titled: "The trouble with ideologues"

[Shadow Creature]

Loss of share value is the punishment

for most people and that is already happening isn't it?

For those actually running the company, they should face the criminal sanctions.

[iamtechus]

5. He should be sued just as if his dog bit someone.

By owning it he automatically accepts responsibility for its actions, right?

[backtomn]

87. No.....not in the case he describes.

If you invest in a 401K, through a stock fund, you may have no knowledge that the fund includes BP. The fund manager selects stocks from a number of companies and the fund might have BP stock and other times not....all without you knowing about it. The fund manager is paid to know which stocks to support. He specifically mentioned a 401K investor....a person that also has no vote for the board members. Technically, the fund manager has chosen to buy BP stock, not the individual investor.....even though that manager also has no vote on board members.

This is much ado about nothing. Sorry. We need to focus on those responsible....and that is not the 401K investor.

[DIKB]

6. Given some of the idiotic comments he's made

I can't believe he commands any respect.

[Catshrink]

7. He should stick to Visine commercials.

[awoke_in_2003]

70. I wish he would stick his head...

in a bucket of Visine- 5 minutes ought to do the trick.

[Chulanowa]

15. It's an image thing

How two most prominent roles as an actor are a high school science teacher, and the host of a trivia show. Plus he cultivates the look of a bored intellectual, so a lot of people just go "Dyerhur, dat guy be smart!"

[Corrupted Edge]

56. It really sucks how that's how most people really will think...

[Jumping John]

8. When all is said and done - BP Shareholders have benefited by BPs

employees being killed by BP's desire of the $$$$ more than their respect of their employee's life and families.

[backtomn]

88. He said "MUTUAL FUNDS"

People invested in a 401K, government or union pension (Mutual Funds) should not be punished for the actions of BP decision-makers!!! Lots of of these people are invested in BP without even knowing about it. Hell, they may have only known that they elected to invest in a "European Prime Stock Fund" and that this ever-changing collection of stocks (purchased by a mutual fund manager) has been successful in the short and long term. So, should execute this union longshoreman retiree or just fine and imprison him. PLEASE. Focus on the decision-makers.

[thelordofhell]

10. I guess he never heard of Enron either

This man is the definition of the word "twit"

I hope this idiot's entire portfolio consists of BP stock.

[grantcart]

11. He heard of it, but because he didn't own any stock in it couldn't take the

pain personally.

"Twit" is a remarkably innocent term to describe Ben Stein's demeanor and idiocy from the lordofhell.

I suspect the lords of hell have been overworked recently and are experiencing fatigue.

[Rex]

12. Win Ben Steins last brain cell.

Whoops, too late it died from intellectual starvation!

[TexasObserver]

13. The Free Market requires that bad capitalists be put out of business.

Which is the reason no company or bank should ever be considered too big to fail. If they fail, we pick their bones and have smarter, better people replace the dead giant. BP has earned the right to fail, and the duty. Its equity should go toward the damages it has caused.

[socialist_n_TN]

49. If they're too big to fail

They're just the right size to nationalize!

[sasquuatch55]

65. Absolutely!!!!!!!!!

nt

[green917]

75. +1,000,000,000

[girl gone mad]

16. He's hardly alone.

There's an entire class of people out there who don't believe they should bear any risk for the investments they make, they should only take the rewards. Sadly, we just spent trillions of dollars protecting these people from the consequences of their idiotic choices.

[socialist_n_TN]

50. Privatizing profits, socializing losses

The New Liberal, neocon way.

[chill_wind]

71. +1000

[certainot]

17. he'd go nuts if he couldn't simplify his reality

with free market rules. the complexity of nature scares the crap out of him.

[me b zola]

18. I see, Ben

When you invest with a bunch of criminals and they get caught, then you feel that you are being punished rather than taking responsibility for your actions. When working class people take out secondary mortgages unwittingly from predatory companies, those homeowners were irresponsible people who wanted something for nothing. Gotcha. :wink:



Hey Ben, fuck off.

[me b zola]

20. PS

Regular people aren't members of the investor class. If you've convinced yourself that you are a member of the investor class (not that you are regular, you certainly have more than most), take your lumps and STFU. For the rest of us who are just trying to survive, get off our backs and save your "advice" for the mirror.

[laughingliberal]

23. +1000 nt

[Patiod]

74. +2000

exactly!

[FBI_Un_Sub]

19. The purpose (okay - A purpose)

of the corporate structure is buy into the risks and rewards.

[Ned Bro]

21. Ben Stein is a pathetic fool

who literally had to buy his own TV show!

[AmericaIsGreat]

22. LOL

Ben Stein is the dumbest well-educated person ever. First "Expelled" and now this. You are a shareholder of BP. They did something that's causing their stock price to tank. When that happens you lose money. THAT'S HOW IT WORKS.

[grantcart]

27. economics 101

[AnArmyVeteran]

24. Years of Constant Corporate Crimes MUST come to an END.... NOW!

The republican congress under Bu$h eliminated hundreds of regulations to allow corporate American to go on a crime spree stealing everything they could. Wall Street crooks destroyed our country's financial markets. Oil companies stole as much money as they could. Unknown speculators working in dark rooms in unknown offices stole trillions of dollars by manipulating the price of oil and forcing tens of thousands of companies out of business.

Corrupt oil companies jacked up their prices and made a combined hundreds of billions in PROFIT almost every year while Bush was president and every dime of that money came from us, the victims of their crimes. The corrupt Tesoro oil went from $2 a share to almost $140 a share from the time Cheney declared war on Iraq in August 2002 to four years later. Tesoro made a staggering $25 profit off of every barrel of oil they refined. I'd go over every other oil company but they all experienced great profits as you experienced great pains.

It's time THEY experienced pain and the only way to hurt sociopaths is to take the money from them they stole from others. This is OUR country and our world and I am tired of the daily acts of corruption, intrusions and gougings by corrupt corporations. We the people built this country, not corporations. The poor and middle classes die in wars, while corporations and the rich get richer.

It's time we put an end to this madness...

[Kablooie]

25. Good lord! Shareholders don't have to be punished if they'd sell their shares. Sheesh!

That's what it's all about! If a company screws up, drop it!
If you stay with it, it's your own fault that you lose, not anyone elses.

[Johonny]

26. So a company that drills oil wells that deliver that oil to the ocean

instead of the market place shouldn't cause a negative impact of the stock holders of the company? Does Ben also buy stocks in lead mines that promises to dig out diamonds?

[Hannah Bell]

28. Because they invested in a company that polluted the entire Gulf of Mexico, fool.

Bad investment, you lose.

(In case it's not clear, "fool" = that twit Ben Stein, son of American Enterprise fellow Herbert Stein).

[TheKentuckian]

29. We may need a "final solution" and end articles of incorporation

The whole point is to avoid personal liability and it has now created a moral hazard beyond all previous contemplation. The benefits are greatly outweighed by the now structural dangers to society.

[Scuba]

30. Privatize profits. Socialize losses.

[avaistheone1]

83. Bingo.

and its wrong to do so.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Is this a question of whether stockholders are liable *beyond their stake in the company*?

That is: if the eventual damages come to more than the entire worth of the company, should stockholders have to pay they extra out of their own pocket, as well as losing all their investment in the company?

As an example:
If the total assets of BP are $300 billion
Total cost of clear-up, and court-awarded damages comes to $500 billion
As well as ownership of the company being taken from the stockholders, and distributed in some way to those awarded damages, should the stockholders have to find another $200 billion in cash, and hand that over too?

It's possible that this is what Stein means by 'should there be a sanction on the stockholders'. Under normal company law, it's not possible (but, for instance, the way the Lloyd's insurance market in London was run, it was possible - investors in Lloyd's had unlimited liability for loses. This became a cause for concern when it became clear many might be bankrupted by huge claims; something was sorted out for that, but I can't remember what).

A 'sanction', to me, may well mean more than just losing all the money you invested in a stock.

[mwooldri]

33. shareholders/stockholders in a corp can't be held liable for anything beyond their investment in BP.

Plain and simple as that.

Lloyds of London is a different case, because they were investors, sure but they were not normal shareholders... they were called "Names" - who agreed to put their entire resources on the line if Lloyds of London needed it. In return though they got phenomenal returns if Lloyds of London did very well. It was much more of a risk, because they were more like partners, not shareholders, and in a partnership, the entire partner base gains and loses together, including their entire livelihood. I have a small business on the side, it is not incorporated, I am a sole trader. If I gain money it's all mine, if I lose money, I stand to lose everything. If it were a bigger concern then I'd probably incorporate as an LLC but since it's a small business (a lot of business is done on ebay) and I register as such for tax advantages etc my gains are small and my liabilities are also small.

Owning shares in a company is a risk. It is a gamble. You can either gain a lot of money or have it all wiped out. See Enron, etc.

Now BP, being based in London, can announce what they call a "Rights Issue" - where existing shareholders can have the offer of paying extra money to keep their shareholding effectively the same, or see their existing shareholding in the company diluted. In other words, BP would print and make more shares available for sale. That can raise money for BP, with the present shareholders having first dibs at buying the new shares. I don't know if the New York based companies can do something similar.

However when it comes to mutual funds and pension plans and stuff like that, the managers of these plans have better well got a nice diversity of shares in various companies. Not like the Enron pension plan where most employees pension plans were virtually Enron stock. That's why after the Enron debacle, no-one in a 401k plan is allowed to have more than 10% of their funds in stock in the company they work for.

I think Mr. Stein is just worried about losing the entire value of his portfolio in BP. Given what BP is, the management of the company could just easily spin off the troubled assets into another company and saddle it with debt, and the rest, called New BP would continue... existing shareholders would gain shareholdings in both companies. The troubled BP would soon collapse, the New BP would prosper. Mr Stein and every other BP investor would not lose all their money if this is done in this way. BP however wont do this until the Gulf Oil mess is "sorted out".

[Hubert Flottz]

32. Let's plug the hole with Ben Swine and his fucking money...

[DOOMS]

34. He is not a stockholder in BP......

He is a shareholder in a fund. Pooling risk and costs, sharing profit. Basically soshellizm.

Pssst, stock is ownership. Would he turn down profits base on good decisions in which he played no part too?

[Mz Pip]

35. So who is supposed to pay for this?????

If it isn't BP then for crissake who?? The taxpayers???? WHy punish them?

Paying for this mess is not "punishment." It's all about responsibility which is supposed to be part of the conservative mantra.

[judesedit]

36. They bought into a company they thought would bring them big bucks....

Well, when the shareholders bought into the company on their speculation of making big bucks, they bought into the company to share in their losses, too. Just because they had $$$$$ in their eyes at the time and failed to acknowledge the facts, is no excuse. The shareholders bought it, they should wear it and stop crying about it. Why should the American taxpayer bail them out, but share in NONE of the profits. That's what the stock market is all about, chumps. Too bad for you. Pay up.

[unblock]

37. similarly, if just a few employees DISCOVER A HUGE NEW FIND OF OIL, why should bp PROFIT?

i mean, the logic is exactly the same, isn't it?

[tabasco]

40. Excellent. n/t

[surrealAmerican]

38. ... but he would never ask, "why should shareholders be rewarded" ...

... when a company makes good decisions. Surely those profits should only benefit the people who made the decisions, right Ben?

[Still Sensible]

39. In this case they should be punished because

this company has systematically ignored safety regulations for years and obviously the BOD that the shareholders elected allowed it to continue. That board, which there can be no doubt knew about the continuing dismal record, did not force dramatic changes. Risk vs reward and they chose greed. They gambled and lost.... and Ben Stein knows this.

edited to add: And by the way, I'm sure the company has officers and directors insurance and that the litigation over that coverage--which is typically void for illegal acts--will be a circus to behold.

[IronLionZion]

41. privatize the gains and socialize the losses

that's been the Republican way for quite some time.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

43. Exactly. That is our economic system. Socialism for the wealthy

when the chips are down, cannibal capitalism for everyone else.

[Recursion]

His dad? Stein himself worked for Nixon and Ford, didn't he?

He's mentioned in All the President's Men and Kissinger's memoirs.

[grantcart]

63. Yes but his father was the big hitter Chairman of Economic Advisers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Stein

[Recursion]

42. His dad? Stein himself worked for Nixon and Ford, didn't he?

He's mentioned in All the President's Men and Kissinger's memoirs.

[jp11]

44. I have this odd feeling that if BP wasn't such a huge company he'd be fine with it going down and

the stock becoming worthless as part of the magical and fantastical free market. The free market would have this smaller company die because it was poorly managed and controlled, all those who had invested in this bad company would pay for their foolishness of putting money in small risk taker who cut corners. Of course a smaller company wouldn't be able to pay all the damages so the taxpayers would get hosed on that, but free market, america love it or leave it, you betcha! Maybe a larger corporation would have bought out that little upstart and the stock would go up, but only if the free market was allowed to work as intended by Zeus master of the mountain and all the worlds.

[anachro1]

45. Republicans have always

wished for the destruction of this country. This is why making money from war and the death of Americans is so important to these assholes.

You can bet that Ben Stein has squirreled away all the money he can. He got his, and that's all that matters to these people.

[truth2power]

46. Ben Stein understands it just fine...

With a degree in Economics, how could he NOT get it?

He's just trying to muddy the waters, (so to speak).

He figures the tea baggers will pick up that RW "talking point" and run with it. More disinformation! :crazy:

[TwentyFive]

47. He is part owner of BP. He was REWARDED for "Windfall Profits" when gas was $4 a gallon. So...

..he should be punished for his BAD INVESTMENT DECISION. I personally think BP might go BK when this is all done.

[Subdivisions]

48. That is just so profoundly stupid of Stein, who is supposed to know better. n/t

[fascisthunter]

51. I Wouldn't Expect a Sociopath like you to Understand

as you bullshit yourself and others because you have a defective or should I say non-existent conscious. Others of your ilk delude themselves into believing they have balls or guts, but without the means to place ones self in another's shoes to feel or empathize, you become a monster, and a coward of the worst kind.

[scentopine]

52. Nothing like a massive capitalist failure to bring out the sociopaths -nt

[YOY]

53. I'd offer him cheese with his whine but his career is built on it already.

n.t.

[JHB]

54. C'mon Ben! You know you want to blame the government! Complain about inadequate regulation!

Another champion of "personal responsibility" heard from.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

55. We're talking about a person who says the Theory of Evolution caused Nazism.

Why wouldn't he defend Evil in all its forms? He's evil. Not dumb. Evil.

[The Wizard]

57. Ben Stein fits the criteria for a Republican

He wants to privatize profits and socialize risks. His willful ignorance is typical of the Republican leadership. He's a disgrace to his people and should have his foreskin reattached.

[alp227]

58. HAHA who cares what Stein has to say these days.

He had no problem wasting hundreds of thousands on an Ivy League education that just never got to him.

[daleo]

60. Nicely put. n/t

[Downtown Hound]

61. Ben Stein needs his ass kicked. n/t

[GETPLANING]

62. Well written post

And as an investment economist myself, I can put it into a very short answer. Shareholders OWN shares of the enterprise. As owners, they share in the responsibilities as well as the rewards of owning that enterprise.

[Lithos]

64. Nice piece!

Course Ben doesn't understand capitalism, he has long supported corporate welfare.

L-

[JBoy]

66. BP shareholders just need to work harder.

To convince someone that the shares are still worth something.

I'm sure Ben would agree that hard work isn't punishment. It builds character.

[grantcart]

90. lol

[malaise]

68. Great post

Rec

[Warren Stupidity]

69. Stein et al believe in corporate socialism.

It is socialism for people that they are against.

[WinkyDink]

72. He wants the workers to be blamed. They destroy industries! They make bad decisions! Oh, wait......

[Uncle Joe]

73. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, grantcart.:thumbsup:

[yurbud]

76. why should taxpayers be punished by paying for BP's sloppy behavior?

[DesertFlower]

77. when we were fighting for HCR,

Ben Stein said about the people who couldn't afford it: "let the government give them the money to buy health insurance". so the government should give the insurance companies more.

i almost threw the remote at the screen.

[NotThisTime]

78. Ben Stein is either a complete moron or he doesn't believe what he says, either way I have zero

respect for him

[2Design]

79. stockholders rule and have no conscious - only - mine, mine, mine

and that is the greatness of capitalism

[alfredo]

80. Bet on a losing horse, you lose your money.

[Arkana]

81. Ben Stein fancies himself some sort of latter-day Adam Smith

when in fact he seems to have failed Economics 101.

[City Lights]

82. You rolled snake eyes, Ben. You lose.

Quit yer whining.

[laughingliberal]

84. Same reason I lose if I stuff a bunch of money in a losing slot. Them's the breaks. eom

[howaboutme]

85. Did Ben ever get his fingernails dirty?

The big problem with the USA is we have too many silver spooned Ivy League grads just like Ben, who have never had to work a day in their lives at a real job, and they somehow get the opportunity to tell Americans how things should be and run our government. They get to have their face and views on CNN, CNBC and NBC.

Ben was fortunate enough to win the parent lottery and get a legacy admittance to Columbia along with a fully paid in full Ivy League education and lots of networked connections, that most Americans never get. He had built in hard wired success unlike most, and he never worked for it or deserved it.

He was unfortunate enough to have arrogance and lack common sense.

I'd be more than content to see him and his ilk with a muzzle.

[backtomn]

86. I believe that you COMPLETELY missed both his points.

1. Obviously, a person that might be invested in BP through a 401K is not likely to know that he is invested in BP. In fact, those investments change regularly, while the 401K investor might only have placed his money in a fund promising to invest in Fortune 500 companies or Asian growth companies. These people do not have voting stock and have ZERO say in who is on the board of directors. You would specifically need to buy voting stock in BP to have that vote.....not a from a number of companies in a stock fund. This is fact, not conjecture.

2. Stein is suggesting that criminal charges on the decision-makers would be more helpful. I agree completely. So....you recommend fines or imprisonment for a union machinist (for example) with 3 shares of BP in his $50,000 retirement portfolio???!!! I DON'T.

I understand your anger and your wish to have someone punished, but your approach is a VERY BAD idea.

[grantcart]

89. No you missed the point

When you buy into a mutual fund you are also buying into an investment strategy. If you don't want to buy that strategy then buy into individual stocks.

In any case Stein believes that he should get the upside of the mutual fund but be exempt from any downside. It is not capitalism.

More to the point is that the managers of pension funds and mutual funds are marketing themselves as immediate bottom line performers and endorse the board of directors and the CEOs of these companies even though they have the power to influence board appointments.

Nothing has exposed how reckless these managers are than the question of CEO compensation which has grown at the expense of the long term investor. Not only are the managers overpaying senior executives they are encouraging high risk institutional behavior that will cause their portfolios to suffer.

If Ben Stein doesn't want to put his money at the risk of mutual fund managers then he shouldn't buy mutual funds. Having benefited from their profits before he has no leg to stand on to cry tears now.

That is capitalism 101.

[backtomn]

93. Not exactly.......

In the case of mutual fund investments, the investor's strategy is limited to previous performance of the fund and some diversification. Many (if not most) funds have some oil company stocks, but I am not aware of a standard mutual fund that focuses exclusively on energy stocks, much less only oil stocks. When you invest in the "Prime 500 Fund" or "South American Growth Fund" or an "Asian Growth Fund", how many people (other than the fund manager) even know that the fund invests in Texaco, Petrobras, or Gazprom. How about the Union pipefitter whose union is investing in funds that buy oil stocks or the retired teacher that is getting money from his fund investments, in part from a Chinese oil company stock?? People investing in mutual funds don't even know what the strategy is.

Why don't you just say "I hate Ben Stein and will criticize everything he says, just on principle" and leave it at that. By the way....the "downside" is that your fund tanks and it effects your retirement.....unless you missed what happened to 401K's in 2007 to 2009. I am not sure what part of your posting was "Capitalism 101"......the part about fund managers voting on boards or paying CEO's?? Try again........on second thought, I'm done with this thread.

[Statistical]

108. "People investing in mutual funds don't even know what the strategy is."

Then you shouldn't be investing. Period.

Leave all your money in low risk bond fund, S&P index fund (where exposure to any particular company is minimal) or treasury fund.
Even better some combination of the above.

Investors shouldn't be protected just because they are uninformed.

You invest, you take a risk. Hell I lost money on BP and understand that.

Shareholder of BP SHOULD be punished financially for the misconduct of BP. That is how Capitalism and Capital markets work.

If you want an investment that only goes put your money in CD and limit it to $250K per bank.

[howaboutme]

92. These corporations have personhood

so let's hold them criminally accountable as individuals for high crimes against humanity. Such high crimes should be worthy of a consideration for capital punishment and/or life imprisonment for the executive office. It would end the discussion and debate on the need for regulation. When a CEO sees one of his peers going to prison for life, profits will never again get in the way of drilling the proper way with backups and contingencies.

[PinkFloyd]

94. I guess when you think about it that way, why should anybody ever be responsible for anything? n/t

[deutsey]

95. Fuck you, Ben Stein. n/t

[L0oniX]

97. Maybe if he used Clear Eyes he could see why.

[Canuckistanian]

98. So BP shareholders should NEVER have negative returns?

All profit, no risk.

My God, it's the Holy Grail of stocks.

[rhett o rick]

99. That's not capitalism he is espousing, it's oligarchy. nm

[Loudmxr]

100. I like Ben Stein. He is a nice man. I would not trust him past telling him a joke.

Really you all have people in your life like this. Any contact further than pleasantries is toxic.

Pleasant guy.

[The Green Manalishi]

101. We should start executing one BP vice president or major shareholder every day

Until it is fixed.

[niceypoo]

102. Privatize the profits, socialize the risk

GOP 101

[backtomn]

103. The worst thread on DU EVER

Someone needs to defend DU from people that make it look terrible.....and there are nearly 100 responses on this thread that either 1) did not read what Ben Stein said.....2) Don't care what he said and just want to complain....or 3) don't know ANYTHING about mutual funds.

Mutual funds are controlled by a fund manager....not the individual investors. People like US invest in funds called something like "Prime 500 Fund", European Prime Fund", "Asian Growth Fund", "U.S. Growth Fund", "European Growth Fund".....some of which contain BP Stocks, at one time or another. Yet some on this thread want jail (or worse) for ANY investors in BP. It doesn't appear to concern these people that this includes average citizens having a 401K, those investing in a government or union pension, or those receiving a government or union pension. Almost none of these people have any knowledge of the companies in which they invested, other than how the fund has performed (news report.....oil stocks have performed well recently). By the way, these innocent people have no right to vote on ANYTHING with these companies.

a) Are these the kind of people that we want to have killed, imprisoned, or fined???.....or b) do we think that investors with voting stock, company board members, or company officers (those making decisions) should pay the price.

If you say (a), I think that you are nuts. If you say (b), then you agree with Ben Stein (and me).

I will hope for those who responded to revise their comments or for someone to erase this thread......it makes us look stupid.

[Ganja Ninja]

104. Don't think of it as investors being punished for what BP did.

Think of it as a bad investment in an irresponsible company that gambled and lost. Sorry about your luck.

[Statistical]

107. Strawman.

Nobody said shareholders should go to jail or be murdered.

However shareholder have (and should) lose money.

That is how capitalism works. It isn't suppose to be a win-win enviroment. It is suppose to be win-lose environment.

If enough shareholders get cleaned out with BP they will either stop investing in other energy companies and/or demand those companies be more responsible.

The idea that shareholders should be protected from losses as a result of BP poor decisions is utter lunacy and simply isn't capitalism.

".it makes us look stupid. "
Your strawman make you look foolish. The thread has merit. Shareholders should be financially punished when a companies fails or suffers a setback. That is the whole point of capitalism.

[ismnotwasm]

109. The OP

Almost invariably, knows what he's talking about and can back it up. You, are perhaps, in a bit over your head.

[ismnotwasm]

105. Ben Stein

is out of his rabbbit-assed mind.

For some reason he reminds me of that cretin Orson Scott Card. Why, I'm not sure, expect they both are particularly hateful spouting their 'conservative' brand of politics.

[Echo In Light]

106. Stein is a fuckin knob

[harun]

110. Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Results

[blindpig]

111. These were not 'bad decisions', by capitalist light.

These guys were maximizing profit, that's their job. Same with the weasel lawyers and flaks.

And the same could be said of Mr Stein, he's looking after all stockholders, that's his job as a cheerleader for capitalism.

All of the bullshit you hear around here, "that's not the way Capitalism is supposed to work", is complete nonsense. This IS the way Capitalism works, and it is working overtime, in the Gulf, in the Mid-East, in Greece, in Iceland, in the Niger Delta, in the Congo Basin, in Amazonia and coming for your Social Security too.

How could all of this be atypical? This is Capitalism, kill it.

[Orsino]

112. Why should a corporate apologist's uneducated opinions see print? n/t