Concerning this meme that people depend on BP for their dividend income...

[LeftyFingerPop]

...and will lose their pensions if BP goes under...

Too bad.

If someone has more than 5% of their dividend producing stocks in one company, then:

1) They knowingly took a huge risk

2) They were advised poorly

3) They are not smart enough to be making investment decisions

Companies fail all the time...hence the statement "don't put all of your eggs in one basket".

[mrcheerful]

1. Actually Rockerfella said it best back in 1929........."If you can't afford to throw money out a

window then the stock market isn't for you".

[LeftyFingerPop]

2. You know, that's really true...

Even if you are well diversified, a general market downturn can easily cut you in half (or worse) if you are too heavily invested in equities. So not only do you have to be diversified between stocks, your total portfolio has to be diversified among stocks, bonds and cash.

[KharmaTrain]

3. Some Have No Choices...

Not everyone has access to their portfolios or were former BP workers whose pensions are based on the company's stock. Sadly too many people I know are in funds and portfolios where they have little clue what their holdings are yet are able to sell them other than cashing out entirely. They depend on their fund managers to do the heavy lifting and all they look for is a check in the mail.

I have little pity for the "poor pensioners" meme as millions of our own retired saw their life's savings go down the rathole thanks to the booosh regime...not to mention all the American pensioners who, thanks to Raygun's war on the unions, saw their pension funds raided and they were wiped out. Maybe those pensioners and BP stockholders will get pissed enough to show up at the next meeting and demand accountability.

[LeftyFingerPop]

6. Well, if they are depending on financial advisers...

and these advisers have them too tied up in one stock, then they need a new adviser or they need to become more active in the management of what is ultimately their money...no one else's.

If individuals had the know how to work all of their lives and establish a good pension, then they should have the know how to be proactive and take control of their fate. Granted, I am only talking here about people who have this money sitting in IRA accounts and are able to move this money at will.

If a money manager has them invested in several mutual funds designed to pay high dividends...they should themselves examine each prospectus for the mutual funds. If each fund shows BP as a top 10 holding, this is a red flag.

[KharmaTrain]

11. Ignorance Is Bliss...

It amazes me how many people with sizeable incomes and/or assets have no real clue of what they have and trust it all to others. Part of this is due to the lack of education...the concept of markets and diversified investments are beyond what many understand and thus they become vulnerable to managers to look after their interest. Sadly some have learned your lessons the hard way as so many funds loaded up on high risk securities and high flying stocks and when the bottom fell out they had no clue what hit them, all they saw were statements with less and less on the bottom line.

You are right in saying that people should watch their managers and investments closely but I do see a big intimidation factor as one can easily get sweet talked by a bankster waving 10% interest or that the system is so intimidating many don't even know who their manager is or how to contact them.

[LeftyFingerPop]

16. I got burned once...badly...

And I told myself "never again". I am not a professional financial adviser, but my own experience is enough for me to urge people to:

1) Gain knowledge and manage your own retirement, or

2) Use a "fee only" adviser who has no interest in selling you financial products.

[fascisthunter]

4. I Say Good Riddance

no one will hold me hostage from wanting what's right FOR ALL.

I'm sure if we shut down the mob, people will lose their means to income as well...

[enlightenment]

5. The extent of your compassion is utterly astounding.

I am in awe. Really.

What can you do for an encore? Push old people in front of on-coming traffic?

[LeftyFingerPop]

7. It's not my fault that the game is tough.

I didn't make the rules.

People need to take action to protect themselves if they are not well diversified. If they are smart enough to have a pension in the first place, they are smart enough to be proactive in the management of that pension, to the extent that they are legally able to do so.

[William Z. Foster]

60. yes it is

Sure it is. The game is tough, and will stay tough, so long as people are taking the attitude you are taking. You ARE making - and enforcing - the rules right here. Even were we all in prison, still, taking this attitude and saying "hey, I don't make the rules" would be callous and inappropriate.

There is nothing that acts in a more powerful way to keep the cruel and destructive system in place than these "this is reality, so accept it" arguments.

This "if they are smart enough" stuff is an example of a complete lack of compassion. You are advancing the conservative "survival of the fittest" social Darwinism doctrine. People have a right to a secure retirement, smart or not. This "the smart survive, and too bad for the stupid" line contradicts all progressive and liberal thinking on social issues. It works against pulling together in solidarity for mutual security. What if a person was alone, handicapped, ill? Older people and handicapped people are preyed on all of the time. Too bad for them if they are not smart enough?

Advocating personalized solutions to social problems, such as retirement security, is never appropriate. It is the way of looking at this foisted on us by the wealthy and the political right wing.

[LeftyFingerPop]

62. Again, if people want to invest in stocks...

they should understand the risks. People that do not, should be investing in safer vehicles.

[William Z. Foster]

69. I understand your argument

I disagree and object to it.

I was around when the investment mania and real estate mania first started. There was a tremendous amount of social pressure - one was viewed as a pariah if they objected to it in any way - and lots of smooth fast talking sales people prowling everywhere.

I strongly object to this "hey too bad, you lose and the smart people win" attitude. Most strongly. The clever, self-serving, control freak assholes win, not the smart people. And a lot of people got taken for a ride, knowingly and intentionally and in some very clever ways.

Stand with the clever little foxes. I stand with the "stupid people," with the "small people," with the people who are not predatory and self-serving enough to successfully swim in these shark infested waters. I dream of the day when the meek do finally inherit the earth, and the clever people are all put on an island somewhere - one person per island, and they can take "personal responsibility" and "look out for number one" to their heart's content.

[LeftyFingerPop]

72. Anyone holding BP stock as of right now...

can sell it on Monday morning for $31 per share and cut their losses. Anyone holding funds in 401k's can call their plan administrator on Monday and instruct them to convert the fund to cash ASAP.

This is the reality of the matter.

[William Z. Foster]

75. I made my point

You agree or you don't.

I don't want any part of your "reality."

Obviously, if everyone called their broker Monday and sold their BP stock, some would lose, as the value would fall if everyone were selling. That is the reality of the matter. But you are not concerned about all of the people who are at risk, you are arguing for the legitimacy and justice of the "smart people" prevailing at the expense of the not so smart. I strongly object to that. Is that clear now?

[LeftyFingerPop]

76. No...I am arguing that the people of the Gulf...

Should suck that company dry.

As far as your "smart people" comment...I have never shot a pistol in my life. Therefore, it would not be prudent for me to handle a pistol. People who do not know how to invest should not be investing either.

[LeftishBrit]

91. This is one of the best posts I've ever read!

This is EXACTLY the point I've been making.

And in this case, blame BP, and blame British RW governments - not the fishermen and others who are BP's victims. Nevertheless, continuing the tough 'personal responsibility' meme will just lead to more RW policies - and also inevitably to more disasters caused by ruthless cost-cutting businesses and policymakers.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

8. Well thought out, and I agree completely.

Greatest Page for you!

:toast:

[LeftyFingerPop]

10. Thanks Peg!

:hug:

(Now if you will excuse me, I have to take my compassionless self downtown now to throw some old people in front of a bus :) )

[CaliforniaPeggy]

13. Anytime!

Yeah, I saw that comment, and it's just unbelievable.

:hug:

[Bluerthanblue]

9. wow....

:shrug:

hope you never have to be on the receiving end of your 'judgment'.

[LeftyFingerPop]

12. Thanks...but I never will be. And no one who asks me for pension advice ever will be either.

Understand?

[Bluerthanblue]

20. yeah, you will be at some point-

it may not be about your 'stocks', but that day will come. Many "pensioners" have little control over how their retirements are funded. My oldest son works for a neighboring town, his retirement funds are managed by the local government center, they invest the money for town employees, and the market down-turn wiped out a lot of people's retirement. He's only 25, but works with guys that don't have years to recover what was lost.

Without investors, many companies couldn't exist. (which wouldn't be a completely negative thing, I admit)

We Americans use far more fossil fuels than any other country. If we are going to consume the goods, using your ...standard of 'judgment', then don't we also run the risk of having to live with the results of a terrible disaster like what is happening in the gulf?
Without a market for petroleum products , there wouldn't be a profit in deep-water drilling.

BP IS financially responsible, and should be held accountable - but should that eclipse any feelings of regret, that other people, like the 'pensioners' suffer as a result of what is happening?

Do you honestly not feel any compassion for them?

[LeftyFingerPop]

25. I didn't say I don't feel compassion...

I do, but it is the way it goes when you do not take a proactive approach with your money. And it happens to more people than just pensioners.

[Bluerthanblue]

27. it's difficult to see that you do in my reading of your OP-

but if you say you do, guess I'll just have to take your word for it.

[LeftyFingerPop]

29. Well, I was being flip for a reason...

ANYONE who invests in stocks takes this risk. Do you know how many people get burned in the equity markets? Do you understand how it is rigged against the small investor? If you are not careful, you WILL lose most of it...that's a fact.

There are NO guarantees, not even for pensioners. There never have been.

There are other alternatives besides putting too much of your money in one stock, and then being shocked when you lose it.

[Bluerthanblue]

34. there really aren't any "guarantees" for fishermen, and

coastal residents either.

There is a risk to life- and many people suffer without hope of any kind of compensation from anyone.

I understand what you are trying to say (I think)- and I understand you have learned the hard way. I just don't understand how 'being flip' helps anyone of those unfortunate enough to be affected by this.

Sorry, I'll drop it.

:hi:

[LeftyFingerPop]

The fishermen were harmed by callous disregard or possible criminal activity.

Any stockholders that were harmed were harmed by not taking normal precautions to protect themselves against something bad happening that has been happening since the beginning of the stock market.

:hi:

[William Z. Foster]

77. nonsense

There is no reason to think that fishermen were at less risk from BP's activities than shareholders were. In fact, they were not. They chose to fish in BP's lake - isn't that what it basically is? - and took their chances, and businesses fail all the time as you said.

The "criminal activity" ruse is transparent and meaningless. Since when did illegality stop any corporation? The same illegal activity that is putting the fishermen out of work also caused the pensions to be at risk, did it not? But it would be wrong whether it were legal or illegal. If what BP has done to the Gulf is not criminal, then the word criminal has no meaning and all law collapses into a heap of absurdity and illusion.

Bad things have been happening all along to the environment, but people have to live and we all have to make decisions that inevitably make us vulnerable to corporations.

"Not taking normal precautions" you say. So smug. So superior. I will tell you what "normal precautions" would be - tear Wall Street the fuck down before anything else gets destroyed, before anyone else is harmed. That is the prudent and sane precaution that needs to be taken. "Normal precautions" would also involve challenging and rebutting the argument you are making here every time it rears its ugly head.

Those are the normal precautions I am going to advocate from here on out.

[LeftyFingerPop]

78. They didn't choose to fish in BP's lake...

They were there long before BP was.

My question to you would be...you would you like to pay for this disaster? If your answer is BP, then you expect the stockholders to pay for it.

[William Z. Foster]

81. geez

Yeah, and people in Britain were getting pensions long before those pensions were put on the stock market. You said that people could sell their stock tomorrow. So fisherman could have quit fishing the Gulf at some point, as well. In each case, "smart" people would be making new decisions to reflect a changing reality. I still don't see any basis for your distinction.

In both cases - and in thousands of cases affecting every aspect of all of our lives - people were told that "it is OK" and the officials they trusted to protect them betrayed them. In fact,l as it turns out, fishing in the Gulf was a worse decision than buying BP stock, wasn't it? Therefore, your contention that stocks are inherently risky if BP is involved while fishing if BP is involved is not, is false. And is it not true that in each case people were reassured falsely, and that in each case people were betrayed by officials charged with protecting them?

[LeftyFingerPop]

94. It's simple...

You can relay all of the philosophy that you want to me...but the bottom line is this...

If either an individual, or a pension fund, or an IRA fund, or a 401(k) fund is too heavily invested in one stock...someone is going to get fucked.

[William Z. Foster]

96. time to put an end to that

Let's put an end to this "someone is going to get fucked" nonsense, and stop looking at all social and political issues through the eyes of the investor class.

I am not talking "philosophy," I am talking about the foundational, and practical real world tried and true principles of living in a cooperative civilized society, the concepts of justice and equality. Justice and equality may be mere "philosophy" to you, to be dismissed when the "reality" of the market takes over. But for most people this is very real, and your imaginary ideas about the logic of the market are the intangible and faith-based mythology, used to disguise an ongoing theft of the public wealth. You are the one promoting the philosophy - libertarian utopian philosophy. The fact that your philosophy is backed up by force does not make it any more real or true. I am talking real world, bread and butter, human survival.

"Somebody gets fucked" when there is someone doing that to them. We can stop that. We will.

[LeftishBrit]

87. This is about OCCUPATIONAL pensions...

This isn't about people's investments. It is about the pensions that workplaces provide. People don't usually have a choice about where their workplaces invest.

In fact, I think that BP and the British Right are using this as an excuse. When did they ever care much about people's pensions before? If governments had kept up the state pension more, pensioners wouldn't be affected to this extent. BP are worried about their executives' pay and wealthy shareholders' bonuses - not about the ordinary pensioners, any more than they are about the fishermen!

However, this doesn't mean that the pensioners should be personally blamed for their problems.

[LeftyFingerPop]

93. It is not just about occupational pensions.

1) It is about British pensioners receiving a fixed income from a fixed pension. These funds were certainly diversified enough so that BP did not consist of more than 10% of the fund's portfolio. Additionally, the downturn of BP was probably somewhat offset by the upturn of another stock in the portfolio...and the meme that pensioners are going to lose all is complete non-sense.

2) It is ALSO about individuals in ALL countries who are invested in BP directly because it "pays a great dividend". Those are the people losing money...at their own hand if they are too heavily invested.

THE FAILURE OF ONE STOCK IN A PENSION PLAN SHOULD NOT DO MUCH TO PEOPLE'S PENSIONS. IF IT DOES...SHAME ON A LOT OF PEOPLE, INCLUDING THE PLAN ADMINISTRATOR, FOR NOT BEING DIVERSIFIED. WHY IS THIS CONCEPT SO HARD TO GRASP?

[LaurenG]

22. WTF?

What an arrogant thing to say...

[LeftyFingerPop]

24. Sorry you think so.

But really, I've helped out quite a few people in this regard. Have you?

[emilyg]

49. Never say "Never", Understand?

[LeftyFingerPop]

56. I honestly never will be.

I'm done with the stock market until it is better regulated.

If I ever do get back in, I will follow good diversification rules and use tight stop losses.

[rucky]

14. If the choice is between pensioners and fisherman...

there's no contest. The fisherman lost and never benefitted from BP's exploits.

[islandmkl]

15. how many people have no idea, and don't care, really don't care at all...

about what generates the profits that pad their retirement/investments?

...and when some shit hits the fan, they are supposed to be victims who deserve sympathy?

i don't want anybody to lose their life savings for any reason...as long as they participated in the generation of that income in a manner that would help prevent that very income from disappearing...

you throw the damn dice, you reap the rewards, you suffer the consequences...

too many people only care about the rate of return, damn anything else...so it is hard to really give a shit about their losses...

yeah, BP made you a ton before it TOTALLY FUCKED THE POOCH...

there are plenty of people, who had NO STAKE in BP who have lost way more than their fucking retirement...

[Mimosa]

17. Most people can take a 5-10% drop

And nobody is really 'living' off of their BP stocks.

[LeftyFingerPop]

18. You'd be surprised...

I bet there are people out there who are 100% invested in BP for what was once their good dividend.

[girl gone mad]

19. That's all true, but..

I do think it sucks that BP was allowed to just pass the pain on to pensions and savers and they will have years to dither and delay. I wouldn't be surprised to see it end up challenged in courts by BP, anyhow, and the shareholders will make for a more sympathetic plaintiff.

From an e-mail exchange involving an oil industry expert on the topic of the deal Obama made:

According to the NY Times, “the oil giant will create a $20 billion fund to pay claims.”

But here’s the kicker: the preliminary terms of Obama’s agreement with BP “would give BP several years to deposit the full amount into the fund so it could better manage cash flow, maintain its financial viability and not scare off investors.”

So BP is allowed to live while the Gulf dies.

The tragedy is that the people on the front lines of this battle don’t need money and resources in a month, or six months, or in “several” years. They need the resources now.

Could St. Bernard Parish President Craig Taffaro have made it any clearer? “Just like he referred to WWII and putting a man on the moon, those operations were successful because there were equipment and resources provided to make those missions successful,” Taffaro spelled it out for the President. “That’s what we need here in the Gulf Coast Region, enough resources and assets so that we can make this a successful fight against this oil spill.”

But BP, a company who generated $27.7 billion in cash last year and paid out $10.5 billion in dividends, is allowed to diddle, given years to come up with $20 billion.

“Let’s get serious about this,” Tony Kennon, Mayor of Orange Beach, Alabama pleaded. “I feel like sometimes we’re in the Land of Oz. This is a catastrophe of Biblical proportions, and we’re acting like it’s an everyday, run-of-the-mill oil spill. It is time to attack the problem and fix it offshore.”

But apparently Obama learned nothing during his well-publicized tour of the Gulf Coast region yesterday. At least he didn’t listen to anything the guys in the trenches had to say. BP should “not be in a position where they can have power to veto anything,” Taffaro counseled. The government “should be able to force the issue here, and that’s where the breakdown has come in.”

[WeDidIt]

26. The "diddling" is to protect a strong cash position and keep BP in business

BP staying afloat is a good thing to continue paying for the cleanup.

This shit will take decades and I want BP to continue paying for it.

[girl gone mad]

39. "BP staying afloat is a good thing"

I could not disagree more.

[WeDidIt]

40. You're free to hold that opinion

I'm more concerned about the people affected by the spill and BP staying afloat means those people stay afloat.

[girl gone mad]

43. "BP staying afloat means those people stay afloat."

I don't know where you get this stuff.

BP relies almost entirely on contractors and subcontractors. Its assets are primarily oil and gas fields that are either currently producing or to be developed.

BP had 97% of the US safety violations of the ENTIRE INDUSTRY. If BP were to be liquidated, its assets and workers would move to companies that were more competent and more attentive to risk management. Its operations are unlikely to be halted; they would be put into receivership and sold, or the liabilities would be restructured, under better management.

This argument that the fate of BP will determine the fate of the Gulf, and therefore BP must be kept alive, is highly questionable when you approach it in practical terms rather than through hyperbolic, emotion-tinged sound bytes. Their fates are not entwined but by the will of corporate apologists and Republican congressmen. Full extrication best serves the long term interests of Gulf citizens.

[WeDidIt]

44. The tone of your response tells me one thing

It's time to walk away from a discussion about this with you.

Good day, madam.

[girl gone mad]

45. The tone of my response doesn't have anything to do with anything.

That's just pure deflection from the topic at hand and your sudden departure can only be taken as an admission of defeat.

You fail to understand that BP can never make good on the damages they have caused. How very presumptuous of these corporate clowns to wave their checkbooks in the air, as if their dirty money can buy a priceless ecosystem that took millenniums to create, or pay for the loss of an entire species.

BP must be allowed to fail, their interests liquidated, the claims paid NOW - not with hollow promises, but with cold, hard assets. This corporate death sentence won't save the Gulf, but it would go a long way toward saving our country, what's left of our environment and our humanity.

[LeftyFingerPop]

41. I agree. BP needs to fail for many reasons...

But, the US Government needs to have access to more of their cash first.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftyFingerPop]

23. 2 and 3 are the truth...

As far as your other statement...I'm not biting.

[Gormy Cuss]

28. Most pensioners losing out aren't individuals investing in BP

They're members of pension funds with investments in BP and thus none of your conclusions are applicable. You may argue that the pension fund managers made bad decisions, but BP is the IBM of British stocks. It's considered one of the safer places to invest -- and 1 out of every 7 pounds invested in British stocks was in BP.

So the chiding of individuals who are losing out because the dividends were canceled is misdirected. That's as far off base as the right wingers wringing their hands suddenly over the fate of British pensioners because of that mean President Obama's actions.

Now for some perspective from the BBC, with the key phrase bolded:

Many BP shareholders will be pension funds. So the fall in the value of its shares and the axing of the dividend will have an impact. The question is how big.

Pension funds nowadays only have about 25% of their money invested in UK shares (most of which is in the FTSE 100 index). The rest is in the likes of overseas shares and bonds.

The National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF), which represents a large part of the UK pension industry, estimates that 1.5% of members' money is invested in BP.

You could use the same sort of rough arithmetic on dividend income, too. £1 in every £7 of dividend income from FTSE 100 companies comes from BP. But, as described above, pension funds have many more sources of income than just the FTSE 100.

And that one pound in every seven is paid to all investors - many of whom will be outside the UK.

BP's own research says it accounts for 8% of UK pension fund income.

So yes, pensioners will lose income but the average amount is relatively low.

eta link:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10293829.stm

[LeftyFingerPop]

30. BP's own research says it accounts for 8% of UK pension fund income.

Well, that seems to indicate that this whole meme is horseshit then...wouldn't you agree?

[Gormy Cuss]

31. Yep. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

32. BP is a significant part of the backing for the UK's version of social security.

You seem to want to make the victims into victims, judging by the thrust and tone of your post.

[LeftyFingerPop]

33. The stock market should never solely be relied upon for income.

If it is, you will lose.

I would like to see some facts concerning how much the UK's version of SS is invested in BP. Again, if it is more than a few percentage points...then this should be expected to happen.

Again, I didn't make the rules. I can show compassion until you are satisfied, but that isn't going to change the rules and the outcome of the game.

[Stinky The Clown]

35. Last I saw, it was 7%

I could be wrong.

[LeftyFingerPop]

36. If that is the case, then the meme in my OP is not valid anyway...

and there is still time for fund managers to negate their further risk by getting out of BP.

[LeftishBrit]

89. Quite so, but the fact that it partially (not entirely) is..

was NOT the choice of individual pensioners but of right-wing privatizing governments.

This should not be used as an excuse by BP for evading their responsibilities to the people whom they have damaged, or by the British corporate-owned RW media for whipping up nationalistic sentiment and obscuring the disgusting behaviour of BP.

But let's put the blame where it belongs - not on ordinary individuals who got caught in the resulting fallout.

[Hannah Bell]

61. it doesn't sound lik it is, from this, seems like worker contributions are the main source of $$

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

[TheKentuckian]

37. It's a real issue, just not one that can be accounted for in taking action

to protect our citizens and our environment.

To even raise the issue is a damning indictment of our economic system, which is fine but the next argument made better be about transforming the economy in a way that at least socializes reward along with the risk.

All the too big to fail situations are a complete blight and are by definition unacceptable. The two big too fail system creates a parasite that exists only to extract wealth for the benefit of the few to the detriment of all.

[LeftyFingerPop]

38. In the case of British pensioners who seemingly have no control...

over what the funds are invested in...

The funds have a fiduciary responsibility to the fund owner...that responsibility is to be not too heavily invested in any one company.

I cannot address the British "social security" system, since I have no facts about it.

But I can say this...if that fund is too heavily invested in any one stock...the public should be made aware of this. It is the same as people in this country saying "I'm not expecting to have any social security by the time I retire".

[LeftishBrit]

90. I agree about the public needing to be made more aware of what is done with our money!

[Taitertots]

42. It is just an excuse to save a lot of money for the wealthy....

and a little bit of money for the poorly invested.

This is exactly why the current corporate structure needs to be demolished. Every corporation is "too big too fail" now it seems. There is absolutely no liability for the people making bad decisions. We have socialized the loses and privatized all the gains.

[emilyg]

46. Walk in their shoes.

[TheKentuckian]

47. So, what do you think should be done? And are you demanding

an immediate transition from our "capitalist" system?

You cannot possibly make an argument for socialized risk and private profits.

If nothing else let England go into debt to offset their pension losses. Why should we put that on our tab? Why should we just suck it up as not to rock anybody's boat?

When I say suck it up, I mean the whole or thr majority of the costs as to allow BP to pay dividends and continue to exist.

[emilyg]

48. BP has deep pockets - they can

afford to pay dividends and the Gulf.

[LeftyFingerPop]

50. Considering the high uncertainty of the final costs...

it would be irresponsible for BP to pay dividends at this point when those funds will almost certainly be needed for the Deepwater disaster costs.

My belief is that this will bankrupt BP, and unfortunately, the owners of the company (the shareholders) are responsible for payment.

[TheKentuckian]

92. Maybe but the fines should eat them alive and the 20 billion just a start

toward damages. There is the fact that by living up to their responsibilities to the American people that they aren't actually operating at a profit, or at least a greatly reduced one, which means that there are no (or much less) dividends to pay out.

If you had to pick one fines and restoration or dividends which would get the money?

I get the feeling that some folks have a death grip on capitalism but don't want to deal with enforcing it and seeing the downside. It doesn't even begin to work if you get all the rewards but pass the losses on to the greater society.

[jillan]

51. I don't wish that on anyone...as much as I despise BP.

[LeftyFingerPop]

53. I don't wish it on anyone either...

but unfortunately, the people affected in the Gulf take precedence over the shareholders.

It is the way things work with stocks...any stockholder really assumes a large amount of risk.

When BP goes bankrupt, the stockholders will get nothing, and the bondholders will simply be in the creditor line, lucky to get anything.

Expecting otherwise would mean expecting an overhaul of the system.

[Hannah Bell]

52. those people pushing that storyline have a different one when union

employees lose their pensions in corporate bankruptcies, etc.

like enron, gm...

so i don't care

the folks who would lose biggest would be some very rich people.

good.

reap the whirlwind.

[Catherina]

55. Thank you n/t

[XemaSab]

54. Exactly

I made the same point in a thread a few days ago.

Private profit, public risk has GOT to be a thing of the past.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Kharma is a **** and I do hope you face

that fate yourself.

Look MOST people who have money in stocks don't have the ability to control this capiche? They just tell if they want their 401K to be safer, or riskier. They do not do the individual choosing of stock.

Given that MOST people in this country have their retirement tied to retirement funds or 401K, tell me oh wise one, exactly how do you expect them to chose? And the managers go for ENERGY stocks since they are considered anywhere from A to TRIPLE A. But I am sure you did not know that.

I am no longer surprised by this line of thinking though. Ignorance is bliss huh?

Oh and incidentally I don't believe in Kharma, but in this case I do hope it reaches you one day.

[LeftyFingerPop]

58. Thanks for the good wishes...

And I will tell you this...

Please do not speak about which you do not know.

At least in the US (which I am knowledgeable enough to speak about), the downfall of BP will not seriously hurt the 401(k) people anymore than a typical and incremental downturn in the general market.

401k's are invested in funds that are diversified. Take a look at a prospectus sometime.

Wishing people bad kharma will come back and bite you.

I wish you the best.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Re-read your OP

and then come back to me.

[LeftyFingerPop]

65. OK, I read it again.

[LeftyFingerPop]

59. Oh, and by the way...

Diversification in funds also exists across SECTORS. Energy is only one sector. Fund managers do not go after energy funds, they go after diversification.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Again re-read your OP

and what you are wishing on people.

[LeftyFingerPop]

66. I'm not wishing anything on people...

I'm simply stating that investing in stocks is, and always has been, a risky business. Things don't always work out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. Neither is the rest of life

and your point? Unlike you I am not wishing ill on pensioners. You are.

And I could start comparing tragedies with you.

But hey, why bother? Your free clue as to how heartless you sound should be the reaction to your OP.

[LeftyFingerPop]

70. Actually, I am not being heartless, I am hoping that the people in the Gulf...

suck every last penny from BP. Unfortunately, that necessitates the stock going to zero. The people in the Gulf did not knowingly invest far too much in a risky company, but they were hurt by that company.

[Hannah Bell]

68. thank god it passed!

[Oregone]

71. We can fix karma later

[William Z. Foster]

73. take care of the retirees

No one need be thrown to the curb. This is some sort of divide and conquer bs, setting the working people of one country against the working class people of another.

Pensions should not be on the stock market, and we all should be using this as an opportunity for speaking about that - all retirement funds (and control over energy and food and medicine) need to be taken out of the hands of the Wall Street sharks. Period.

Enough with putting people's lives in the hands of the reckless few, so that they can pursue massive wealth and power. Enough. I object to your defense and apology for this abominable and horrific situation .

We have millions facing real and terrible suffering, and there are people here running around saying "hey life is tough" and "time to grow up and face reality" and other outrageously cruel and callous things. WTF is the matter with people? Does catastrophe bring out the inner "survival of the fittest" social Darwinism libertarian in people or something?

As horrible as the unfolding environmental catastrophe is, it is as shocking and disturbing to see the way a few people are reacting to it. We can face anything together. Alone, we are defenseless and doomed, yet we have people gleefully and aggressively promoting rugged individualism and wishing some sort of "tough reality" on the unfortunate. That sends a chill down my spine.

[LeftyFingerPop]

74. Take care of the people in the Gulf...

who did not ask to live and die financially by the hand of BP.

[William Z. Foster]

79. both

Take care of both. You are setting one group of working class people against another. That is my objection.

We all live and die by the hand of corporations. You are making some artificial distinction between groups of people suffering from this for the purpose of divide and conquer.

Stocks have been aggressively sold for decades now. Very, very few cautioned against it, and those of us who did were met with the exact same thinking you are throwing out here. "It is safe to go out and fish the Gulf, BP is not doing anything to worry about" is not fundamentally different than "put your retirement into BP stock, BP is not doing anything to worry about." In fact, there were far more people pushing the latter than the former.

Were you? 10 years ago, 20 years ago? Where did you stand? Were you one of those telling everyone that getting into the stock market was the way to go? Or were you one of the few counseling against that tidal wave of social pressure? I heard a lot of people saying at the front end "it is extremely safe, and only dummies are leaving their money in the bank" and then at the back end saying "well too bad, sucker. The stock market is a risk, and hey, you lose." Meanwhile massive fortunes were made for the few with the money from all of those small investors. Are you OK with all of that?

[LeftyFingerPop]

80. Questions:

1) Who should make the people of the Gulf financially whole?

2) Who should make the stockholders financially whole?

[William Z. Foster]

82. Answers:

1) The federal government

2) no one

3) Who should make the pensioners financially whole?

The British government

[LeftyFingerPop]

83. Uh...

1) The federal government should make the people of the gulf whole? Where do they get their money? From the US taxpayers. You are saying that the US taxpayers should pay for this.

2) If you are saying that no one should make the stockholders whole, then you are agreeing with me.

3) The pensioners ARE A SUBSET of the stockholders. I would have no problem with the British Government making the pensioners whole.

[LeftyFingerPop]

84. There is also something you need to understand...

In the UK, the term "pensioner" is sometimes used as a generic term to indicate people who are retired. "Pensioners" could either:

1) Be receiving a pension from BP, or

2) Have their own money invested in BP stocks, and be living off the dividends, independent of a pension.

[William Z. Foster]

85. no

Are you assuming that the working class people should be carrying the tax burden? I didn't say how the federal government should get the revenue - seizing BP's assets is one way. But the federal government is the appropriate institution to administer it - not BP and not the courts, where BP could tie things up for decades. BP made tons of money off of their operations. Grab that loot, and distribute it to the people harmed. The government is the instrument for that work.

I am making a distinction between the pensioners and the general shareholders, yes. I also make a distinction between those living paycheck to paycheck, and those earning passive income when it comes to tax policy and for the same reason.

Now, as to where the British government gets the revenue to pension out the people affected, I didn't mention that, either. Who was involved in selling these stock retirement schemes? I am sure they made tons of money of them. Grab that loot and put it back where it belongs.

Your arguments allow the super wealthy to hide behind working class people - that is perhaps the most evil aspect of the whole thing. Poor pensioners, poor taxpayers will be hurt if we go after the corporations. Bullshit. It is extortion by the corporations - "give us what we want or we will take you all down with us."

[LeftyFingerPop]

86. If the government seizes BP's assets...

then the stock will go to zero if the impact on the gulf is severe enough to require cash of that magnitude.

You can't have it both ways, and you are not making any sense.

Bed time...goodnight.

[William Z. Foster]

95. what an extortion racket

You made my point for me better than I could. Stocks don't just passively "go to zero" in some magical way, the big players take their money and run. You are arguing against a role for government to protect working class people and go after that money with the investor's logic - "give us all your money or we will take it."

How can there be lots of money there so long as we don't interfere with the market or the corporation, but should we move to protect the public then "poof" the money all magically disappears. It does not disappear, it is transferred into the pockets of the few. Why can the money be transferred into the pockets of the few, but the many who are in desperate need can not be protected? That is the central question here, this affects everything. If the working class people cannot be protected, if everything is to be a "free market" with every person looking out for themselves, then we might as well just put Republicans back in power and let them complete the job of destroying government - destroying government as an instrument for protection public welfare, that is, while increasing its policing powers to keep the rabble in line for the benefit of the corporations and Wall Street, the wealthiest few.

[LeftishBrit]

88. Firstly, I think that the pensioners are being used as an excuse by BP and the British Right

IWhen did either ever care much about people's pensions before? If governments had kept up the state pension more, pensioners wouldn't be affected to this extent. BP are worried about their executives' pay and wealthy shareholders' bonuses - not about the ordinary pensioners, any more than they are about the fishermen! Their executives and others like them need to pay a lot more in tax, and then that could go to the state pension.

However, this doesn't mean that the pensioners' problems are their fault. They didn't invest. Their workplaces did.

In fact, few workplaces will have invested *entirely* in BP; so that pensioners will *not* be left as destitute as the fishermen. I strongly support the setting up of the fund for the fishermen, and hate the way that the British right-wing media are using this for nationalistic propaganda, and to defend the corporations (that own them). But treating it all as a matter of individuals' 'personal responsibility' is just encouraging the sort of attitude that contributed to the disaster in the first place.