Obama Hurting British Pensioners

[Bud Struggle]

Barack Obama has been accused of holding "his boot on the throat" of British pensioners after his attacks on BP were blamed for wiping billions off the company's value.

City investors said the president was jeopardising the pensions of millions with his "excessive" criticism of the energy company following the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.


Before the accident on April 20, BP was Britain's biggest company, with a stock market value of £122 billion. Since then, £49 billion has been wiped off its value.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7815713/Barack-Obamas-attacks-on-BP-hurting-British-pensioners.html

It seems that that average British Proletarian worker is the one of the main owner of Britain's biggest businesses.

We are all Proletatrian, we are all Bourgeoise these days. :)

[Adi Shankara]

Barack Obama has been accused of holding "his boot on the throat" of British pensioners after his attacks on BP were blamed for wiping billions off the company's value.

City investors said the president was jeopardising the pensions of millions with his "excessive" criticism of the energy company following the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.


Before the accident on April 20, BP was Britain's biggest company, with a stock market value of £122 billion. Since then, £49 billion has been wiped off its value.

It seems that that average British Proletarian worker is the one of the main owner of Britain's biggest businesses.

We are all Proletatrian, we are all Bourgeoise these days. :)

Hardly the truth. think about it--since when has the media, British or American, actually cared about pensioners? why do they only bring it up now that British Petroleum is under fire? it's because RICH people are going to lose THEIR money, and they're just using the Pensioners as a cause célèbre to gain popular support to support their agenda of avoiding the loss of value of BP.

otherwise, where was the outrage when so many Americans and British citizens didn't lose their pensions, but their JOBS when work gets shipped overseas, or why dont' they report that Tony Hayward's salary is
3.6671776 million U.S. dollars


a year? plus his stock options? where is the coverage on that? I had to look that up from the bowels of BP's corporate website to come up with that figure, yet it should be front page news.

[Bud Struggle]

Hardly the truth. think about it--since when has the media, British or American, actually cared about pensioners? why do they only bring it up now that British Petroleum is under fire? it's because RICH people are going to lose THEIR money, and they're just using the Pensioners as a cause célèbre to gain popular support to support their agenda of avoiding the loss of value of BP.

otherwise, where was the outrage when so many Americans and British citizens didn't lose their pensions, but their JOBS when work gets shipped overseas, or why dont' they report that Tony Hayward's salary is
3.6671776 million U.S. dollars


a year? plus his stock options? where is the coverage on that? I had to look that up from the bowels of BP's corporate website to come up with that figure, yet it should be front page news.

Who cares what Hayward makes or what rich people loose. The thing is that there are hundreds of thousands of British pensioners that live on basic minimums--that will have considerably less this year because of he decline in BP stick dividends.

If you try to hurt a couple of rich people (that actually don't get hur at all) you hurt thousands of working class people just trying to get along.

The Working Class owns a huge chunk of BP.

[Adi Shankara]

Who cares what Hayward makes or what rich people loose. The thing is that there are hundreds of thousands of British pensioners that live on basic minimums--that will have considerably less this year because of he decline in BP stick dividends.

See? under a communist society, this wouldn't happen, because the pensions would be provided from the state and the expenses derived from the profits of industry. a private, capitalist pension not guaranteed always results into something like this; afterall, look at the private health insurance you get in the US; its so expensive, it's not even sustainable.



The Working Class owns a huge chunk of BP.

do they really own it? Like the US government system, yes we can vote in elections, but do we really run government? I need to find the poll, but something like 75% of all US citizens think not.

[Bud Struggle]

See? under a communist society, this wouldn't happen,

Till that happy day, Comrade. Till that happy day.:thumbup1:

[Demogorgon]

This notion that heavy investment by pension funds in companies means that workers with their pensions their own the companies is a ridiculous one that appeared in the nineties I think and should really have been dismissed without further discussion. If you have a pension with a company, you are a customer. You pay them money from your salary and in return they provide you with a pension in your retirement. The fact that they own large amounts of shares has no bearing on your position because you don't own the pension firm. You are merely their customer. Just because your computer runs Windows, doesn't mean you own Microsoft.

As for the particular case regarding pensioners here, that is just crocodile tears from certain parties trying to find a way to persuade the British public to side with BP over America. The fact is that the pension companies have a legal obligation to pay out the pensions, so in the short run those will be unaffected. It will hurt their profits of course and also prevent further investment in the short run as they have to cover the loss they make, but let's not pretend people are going to be out of a pension.

[Zapatas Guns]

It looks like BP is threatening to do what American banks threatened to do.

"Save us or we take everyone down with us. We are too big to fail."

The proper response is we band together and take you out.

[Bud Struggle]

This notion that heavy investment by pension funds in companies means that workers with their pensions their own the companies is a ridiculous one that appeared in the nineties I think and should really have been dismissed without further discussion. If you have a pension with a company, you are a customer. You pay them money from your salary and in return they provide you with a pension in your retirement. The fact that they own large amounts of shares has no bearing on your position because you don't own the pension firm. You are merely their customer. Just because your computer runs Windows, doesn't mean you own Microsoft.

No you are there owner. These are people that have their retirement pension invested in BP. Not people that have pensions from the company.

June 9 (Bloomberg) -- More than 40 U.S. lawmakers called today for BP Plc to suspend its dividend, stop its advertising and spend the money instead cleaning up its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.


As for the particular case regarding pensioners here, that is just crocodile tears from certain parties trying to find a way to persuade the British public to side with BP over America. The fact is that the pension companies have a legal obligation to pay out the pensions, so in the short run those will be unaffected. It will hurt their profits of course and also prevent further investment in the short run as they have to cover the loss they make, but let's not pretend people are going to be out of a pension.

About 10% of BP is owned by British persion funds. And those people WON'T get payed if BP is not allowed to pay dividends.

[Demogorgon]

No, you are mistaken here. Having a pension in a fund does not mean you own what that fund owns. Like I say, you are their customer, not their owner.

As for them not getting paid, that is nonsense. Do you know the turnover of these pension firms? They have contingencies for this sort of thing.

[Bud Struggle]

No, you are mistaken here. Having a pension in a fund does not mean you own what that fund owns. Like I say, you are their customer, not their owner. There are lots of differnet kinds of funds--but usually you actually own part of a "corporation" like entity that owns stock in the company. But as an owner of that fund you may direct the fund to vote in any manner you so choose--obviously one person's vote doesn't mean much but 10% of a company most likely can put a person on the BoD. Most funds don't use that option, but they could.


As for them not getting paid, that is nonsense. Do you know the turnover of these pension firms? They have contingencies for this sort of thing.One would hope.

[RGacky3]

It seems that that average British Proletarian worker is the one of the main owner of Britain's biggest businesses.

We are all Proletatrian, we are all Bourgeoise these days.

if 98 working class people control 40 percent of the stock, then 2 capitalist class people control 30% each, arguing that the working calss controls the company is absolutely disingenous. Each of the individual 98 people control less than 1%.

Also there are ways you get past this, protect the pensions and hold corporate leaders responsible, but thats not gonna happen.

[Demogorgon]

There are lots of differnet kinds of funds--but usually you actually own part of a "corporation" like entity that owns stock in the company. But as an owner of that fund you may direct the fund to vote in any manner you so choose--obviously one person's vote doesn't mean much but 10% of a company most likely can put a person on the BoD. Most funds don't use that option, but they could.

Depending on the fund in question, you may retain legal ownership of the money you put in, but that still is not a share in the company and certainly not a share in the companies you invest in. No more (actually less) than your savings in a bank make you an owner of whatever the bank has its money in. I can't remember who it was who came up with the argument you are giving, it has been a few years since I came across it, and to be honest it hasn't really caught on for a reason.

Anyway again, this claim about pensions is just part of an attempt to get people to side with BP. What is even worse here is a pathetic attempt by the city and the most right wing politicians to tap into patriotic nonsense by saying we should side with a "British" company over those nasty Yanks. It is ridiculous.

Also, if you will allow me aside. "The City" must be the most poisonous thing to affect British politics since the reformation. The way they talk and the way much of the media have it, we might as well dispense with elections altogether. We were told we needed to return a clear Conservative majority in the election because that was what the City wanted. When we didn't, the Liberal Democrats had to commit to a coalition because the city wanted it. The deficit has to be narrowed immediately rather than taking the American route of allowing it to stimulate recovery because The City doesn't want its own borrowing crowded out. It has to be reduced primarily with cuts to social spending because that is what The City wants. It is worse than America.

You actually see some Conservative Politicians say, without a hint of irony that it is obvious the Conservatives have to be the Governing party because that is what The City and "The markets" want. This isn't just offensive to a silly commie like me that believes in radical democracy, it is offensive even to those satisfied with conventional polyarchy. Britain we are effectively been told can't even choose between two very similar parties any more as the electorate pleases, we have to go with whomever that bastard entity known as The City wants. Labour were allowed in in 1997 because The City thought it was in their interests and the press beholden to it allowed Labour another two terms, but once the City changed its mind it was time for the Conservatives. I hat the Labour party, not only are they a bunch of anti-working class capitalists, but they have the added bonus of acting like the Masons in Scotland. Join the Labour Party and you get to meet all the right people, and I don't necessarily mean in Government either. One of the more relaxed meetings is just the place to go to meet and charm whoever can give you a promotion at work. But despite this hatred, even I can see how unfair it is even to them the way the last election was stitched up. Never mind us not being allowed Democracy. It seems Britain isn't even allowed polyarchy and competitive elitism any more. Just pure plutocracy.

Anyway, I digress, but I think it is necessary to point out just how appalling the British political atmosphere has become, to put the arguments here into perspective. The City wants BP let off and is fishing around for reasons to sell this pathetic notion to the public. They are trying pensions and patriotism. Utterly shameless.

[Dimentio]

The problem is that the British government is concerned about BP's future and ready to put the people's money into the company. That is what would hurt the British workers more.

As for Obama, from an American perspective he's doing what I would have done. Moreover, an "evil oil company" is a symbolical target which could show him as some form of Hercules, smashing hydras.

[Dean]

Who cares what Hayward makes or what rich people loose. The thing is that there are hundreds of thousands of British pensioners that live on basic minimums--that will have considerably less this year because of he decline in BP stick dividends.

If you try to hurt a couple of rich people (that actually don't get hur at all) you hurt thousands of working class people just trying to get along.

The Working Class owns a huge chunk of BP.
Correction: the working class is the primary at-risk owner of market shares.

The exact same thing happened in the US - lots of people lost about half the value off of their retirement, while large banks received bailouts and the upper echelon received bonuses.

The bottom line is you've proven nothing except that the system is designed to protect the rich, and transfer losses to the working class. This is discussed in my essay which nobody responded to: http://www.revleft.com/vb/2010-economic-downturn-t136202/index.html


The result was a wide-spread housing bubble which popped, a massive over-night transfer of federal funds to banking firms (executed by the “left leaning” Democrats!), fundamental changes to asset management regulations which allowed financial institutions to subjectively asses their assets (rather than the market assessment – the former standard - which would have left most firms insolvent), and a trickle-down effect of the compromised profit line (financial firms channel their losses to their consumer and laborer constituents to stay competitive).


The “trickle-down” of these losses is a familiar experience to the working class, whose real wages have consistently shrank in the last 30 years.4 In this case, inflation has continued, but the U.S. has been incredibly lucky in this regard. It has primarily been developing nations which have experienced this burden,5,6 though Chinese attempts to develop western-style currency protectionism were met with criticism in the US legislature, and the nation appears to be bowing to the pressure.7


Inflation, reduced labor expenditures (layoffs and demotions), foreclosures, nationally prejudiced inflation, liquidation and collapse of firms, S&P value downgrades, the reduction of investor confidence and bank seizure of assets due to default all occurred as a result of the aforementioned economic tactics. In fact, just a week ago, Evans-Prichard quoted Larry Summers, Obama’s “top economic advisor”:
"We are nearly 8m jobs short of normal employment. For millions of Americans the economic emergency grinds on"8

[Raúl Duke]

Barack Obama has been accused of holding "his boot on the throat" of British pensioners
Why would the Americans care? Also, he's a politician. Is he looking for British votes or what?

Also, from what people have stated (such as pensions being insured, etc) this sounds more like a media tactic to get the UK on the side of BP.