Stocks: How Much Will You Lose?

By Jeralyn, Section Economy
Posted on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 03:18:00 PM EST
Tags: debt ceiling battle (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The stock market is falling quick. I wonder if Republicans and particularly the Tea Partiers in Congress have checked their brokerage accounts today to see what their radical obstruction moves have cost them personally.

Even with my limited grasp of economics, I'm surprised more people aren't focusing on the danger of the second round of cuts, which seem to be a given. They will be made by a congressional commission, and not only don't we don't know the specific details of what they will include, they may be filibuster-proof and for all practical purposes, veto-proof.

By all accounts that I've read, the second round of cuts will include Medicare and Social Security. The writing is on the wall that in addition to losing Medicare for two years when the age is raised to 67 (since Obama doesn't object to that), there will be cuts to social security benefits. And now we can add losses in retirement savings caused by the stock market tanking. [More...]

The non-rich and seniors among us are getting seriously screwed. On all sides. If the Democrats don't come up with something other than capitulation (masked as compromise) they will be the huge losers in 2012. If the millions of us approaching retirement age are going to go broke and lose health care and social security benefits we were taxed for over the past 40 years regardless of what plan is adopted, we should at least have had the satisfaction of knowing our elected officials went to bat for us. They haven't. Every Democrat in Congress will deserve a primary challenger. We should all start looking for good ones now and at least effect some payback at the voting booth.

If the current crop of Democrats in Congress act like Republicans, the answer is not to vote for Republicans in 2012, it is to replace the faux-Dems with real ones.

< Results, Not Beliefs | Boehner Bill Passes House >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Stocks: How Much Will You Lose? | 67 comments (67 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Retirement savings? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by jbindc on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 03:18:42 PM EST

I don't understand the concept. What on earth are you talking about?

<snark>

Retirement account=Walmart paycheck. (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by observed on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 03:26:14 PM EST

Well, actually means no paycheck at (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by inclusiveheart on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 06:46:02 PM EST

WalMart because they rely on consumers who rely on government assistance to stay profitable - and lately they've found that the cuts that we've already seen as well as the contraction for the poorest Americans have depressed their sales.


Which may explain (none / 0) (#3)
by jbindc on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 03:27:57 PM EST

Why many people aren't moved by the argument that "the stocks in my retirement account are dropping!"


I would bet the (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 03:30:58 PM EST

tea partiers have brokerage accounts. They are shooting themselves in the foot. Millions of working Americans still have 401ks that will be affected by the stock market losses.


I would bet (none / 0) (#5)
by jbindc on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 03:32:28 PM EST

SOME of the Tea Partiers have brokerage accounts, but many do not.


why not look it up (none / 0) (#8)
by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 03:46:56 PM EST

if you disagree? here's the database. Or if this is easier, here.


I'm not talking about the reps (none / 0) (#10)
by jbindc on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 03:50:57 PM EST

I'm talking about voters - the people who are supporting the Tea Party. The people who are calling the offices of their Reps and telling them not to accept a deal that raises the debt ceiling.


I was talking about the ones (none / 0) (#14)
by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 04:06:46 PM EST

in Congress.


Not restricted to Tea Party Reps. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by MO Blue on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 04:46:17 PM EST

It's no secret that members of Congress qualify as political insiders, but a new report strongly suggests that they also may be insiders when it comes to trading stocks.
"We find strong evidence that members of the House have some type of non-public information which they use for personal gain," according to four academics who authored the study, "Abnormal Returns From the Common Stock Investments of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives."
The watchdog group OpenSecrets.org said on its blog Wednesday that the findings suggest "that U.S. House members are using their powerful roles for more than just political gain."
In a 2004 study, the same professors found that U.S. senators also enjoy a "substantial information advantage" over the average investor -- and even corporate bigwigs -- when it comes to picking stocks. The latest study shows that members of the Senate outperform their House colleagues by an average of 30 points per month. link

According to article Dems do better than Republicans on this.


Loophole city (5.00 / 0) (#20)
by Dadler on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 05:04:45 PM EST

I linked about this the other day. It's legal for Congresscritters and their employees, it is absolutely LEGAL, to trade on inside information.

Nice perk. Sorta throws another monkey toolbox into the problem of DC regulating Wall Street.


I'd be a lot of options (none / 0) (#26)
by MO Blue on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 05:48:45 PM EST

by Congresscritters have been done in the last couple of weeks.


: Keys sticking ahhhhhhhhh..... (none / 0) (#27)
by MO Blue on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 05:50:39 PM EST

Should read I'd bet a lot of options

Sure is (none / 0) (#30)
by Zorba on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 06:17:38 PM EST

But then, Congress exempts itself from a lot of laws, rules, and regulations that everyone else must follow.


then you should have made that clear (none / 0) (#54)
by cpinva on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 04:35:24 AM EST

in your post. i read it (as did many others) as the tea baggers as a group, not solely those in congress. the tea baggers as a group are far less likely to own stocks of any kind.


And that's most likely... (none / 0) (#24)
by Dadler on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 05:25:20 PM EST

...38.3 percent of the best stocks, bet on with a little inside info (or a lot), and for the biggest players, sheesh, we've seen how they ultimately are all on the government dime when their losses come due.

Distribution of wealth is SO outta whack, and all we've done is make it worse, funneling so many TRILLIONS to folks who would never have needed another dime of help in their next ten lifetimes.


: Well, in world rankings (none / 0) (#32)
by Zorba on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 06:32:18 PM EST

on the gini index (distribution of family income), we're ranked #43, with an index of 45.0. Similar to such countries as Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Uruguay, Jamaica, and Uganda. {sigh}

Well, you know (none / 0) (#31)
by Zorba on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 06:19:17 PM EST

the "Golden Rule." Those who have the gold, make the rules. And thus it has always been.


blast from the past (none / 0) (#48)
by markw on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 08:48:01 PM EST

Wow, Domhoff is still conducting research at UCSC. I took a class from him there as an undergraduate in the early 1970s when he was already a tenured prof.


i would bet you are wrong. (none / 0) (#11)
by cpinva on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 03:57:17 PM EST

if the people attending the tea party rallies are a fair sampling of the average membership, my guess is that the majority of them have little in the way of an investment portfolio. those that i've seen interviewed typically are your social security/medicare dependent crowd, who'll be hurt even more by cuts to those programs, and not by a drop in the market.

perhaps the "leaders" of the tea party crowd have securities investments, but they represent a tiny minority of all tea partiers.


: Yeah, savy investors don't show up (none / 0) (#13)
by tigercourse on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 04:04:56 PM EST

to rallies riding rascals and dressed like 3rd rate revolutionary war reenactors

even less (none / 0) (#52)
by Amiss on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:54:58 PM EST

than Wally World. I saw something on teevee today that stocks would drop 30% minimum. We lost on avg $10 a share last week in our last few stocks, they are a thing of history now.


From the article (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 03:38:39 PM EST

you lined to Jeralyn:

With four days remaining until the United States hits its debt limit, President Barack Obama on Friday told deeply divided Republicans and Democrats to stop bickering and find a way "out of this mess.

As if we need any more proof that Obama is a disaster the above just proves it more.

: Leadership by begging (none / 0) (#9)
by Dadler on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 03:49:27 PM EST

I will help you with your earplugs, said the blind man to the deaf gal.

: The Bickersons (none / 0) (#12)
by KeysDan on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 04:03:47 PM EST

need a marriage counselor--maybe the president. No, we tried that and the bickering only increased and their ire turned to the counselor, since he only made matters worse. Of course, the president could call a halt to all of this by invoking the 14th or by balancing (a popular and good word these days) the two statutes at play--debt ceiling and spending authorizations--in favor of the greater good.
That good seems obvious what with the credit rating downgrade looming (something that Obama should not want to happen on his watch), full faith and credit jeopardized , the national and the global economy tanking, and even that little barometer of the stock market on a negative slope. If a statute can be evaded in order to bomb Libya it would seem reasonable to employ an interpretation of law that avoids the economy bombing.

Savings in any form could be quickly (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by MO Blue on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 04:56:37 PM EST

drained for many of us if some of the proposed changes to SS, Medicare and Medicaid. The cost shifting on Medicare alone could result in thousands more in out of pocket expenses for seniors who require regular medical care. The proposed changes to Medicaid could result in people being thrown out of the program and those remaining finding it harder to find doctors, treatment etc. due to lower provider payments.

BTW, many of us here are focused on the second round of cuts, which seem to be a given. Despite the ongoing lobbying to convenience us that Obama is a genius playing 11th or 37th dimensional chess, we are not buying it.

A serious illness or a series of illnesses (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by KeysDan on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 06:13:27 PM EST

may quickly take even a smug senior of means to a humbled senior on the dole. Raising the age of Medicare eligibility is likely to raise the risk to 65 and 66 year-olds in both securing satisfactory coverage and the cost of premiums. And, when finally eligible for Medicare the "savings", also called cost shifting (to the retiree) will be greeted with reduced social security payments, thanks to the "more accurate" way of calculating cost of living adjustments.


: A lot of seniors are (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by MO Blue on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 06:47:23 PM EST

treated for an illness or multiple illnesses that need regular office visits or tests to monitor progress or efficiency of drugs. They will be forced to pay the higher premiums for moving younger seniors as well as the maximum out of pocket expense year after year.
Also you better hope that you get a major illness at the beginning of the year because timing will be everything. Being diagnosed with cancer in November will pretty well guarantee that you will be paying the maximum out of pocket expense for at least two or three years. Each and every year, for cancers that are treatable but not curable. That will not even include the money necessary for prescription drugs which due to new treatments are not available as a generic and are extremely expensive.

Will just add that... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by tworivers on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 04:57:26 PM EST

I've never been so disgusted with government in my entire life.

The fact that we're even having this ludicrous debate just goes to show how out of touch our representatives in Washington are and how incredibly f'ed up their priorities are. This manufactured "crisis" is nothing but a smokescreen.

It turns out that George Carlin was right. At the time I thought he was being cynical but increasingly it seems like he was prophetic. They are coming for our social security money.

: Tea Partiers or no (none / 0) (#33)
by BackFromOhio on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 06:33:21 PM EST

I just do not believe that average Americans want cuts to Social Security or Medicare, as everyone has parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. who rely on the income and the medical care.

Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by CoralGables on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 05:06:44 PM EST

you seem to be of the notion that cuts would hurt the stock market. Stocks are hurt more by the "uncertainty" of what might happen. A deal would likely give stocks a boost.

A deal that further degrades the (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by inclusiveheart on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 06:44:04 PM EST

buying power of the large majority of Americans will hurt WalMart's stock. And the domino effect of all of the retail establishments losses due to huge cuts - and that's just one sector of the economy - will hurt the market.

The end. That's all. Sorry. The market, as emotional and weird as it is, will be affected by deep government cuts.


first they'd have to make up (none / 0) (#47)
by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 08:21:26 PM EST

what they lost in the past week. And investors are pulling their money out of stocks.


Investors who are pulling (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 01:01:26 AM EST

their money out of stocks are fools, IMO. The people who got badly whacked by the Great Crash are the people who panicked and took their money out. Most stocks (those that were solid to begin with, that is) are back at or near where they were pre-crash.

If you're invested well and with diversity in stocks of companies that aren't in a bubble (as some tech stocks clearly are), there's absolutely no reason to take your money out. Those companies will by and large continue to do well even with reduced consumer demand.


perhaps so. (none / 0) (#55)
by cpinva on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 04:38:25 AM EST

but all that means is that they are even: no loss, no gain, over a period of several years. hardly something i want to put my money in.


So what do you (none / 0) (#57)
by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 09:12:57 AM EST

want to put your money in? I don't have to tell you that you can't have both safe and hugely profitable at the same time.

But my point was only that small investors yanking their all money out of the stock market is not a smart move.


I would say (none / 0) (#68)
by CoralGables on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 06:06:23 PM EST

you are completely correct, but those that don't have the stomach for the gyrations also wouldn't have the stomach for investing on the dips. They spend too much time worrying day to day. Everyone can't have the tenacity and the confidence of their convictions to dive in the water when everyone else wants to get out.


: Agreed entirely (none / 0) (#69)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 01:15:18 PM EST

but investing new money in the market isn't what we were talking about (or at least I wasn't). The question was about the wisdom of those ordinary Americans pulling their money out of the market altogether. And putting it where?
I agree with everything the many and varied financial advisers say on TV, in the papers and on the Web. Unless you have a short-term need for it, leave it in.

The recent highs of the stock market (none / 0) (#64)
by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 12:13:48 PM EST

were due to QE2, it caused extreme market meltup. In discussions about why our leaders would choose to do this, it was generally believed that it was done in order to inject some vitality into something before we all had to face the stagnation. Everyone thought we would burn off the markets dealing with other issues though, not this. The market was going to correct though. It was only a matter of when. Anyone pulling their money out isn't an idiot in my book. As much as people made fun of those who took delivery of gold to shore up and preserve their wealth, that decision is proving the best one thusfar. Like everything though, you can't plan on holding it forever either. I consider pushing to make the dumb money reliable numbed out bulls to be nothing more than a brainwashing job and pure propaganda.


Stocks / Return of the Debt Commissioners (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Addison on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 05:14:31 PM EST

The stock market is actually doing quite well, considering the circumstances.

http://www.google.com//finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh =0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1311976891663&chddm=98923&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=INDEXDJX:.D JI&ntsp=0

It's fallen around 4.5% percentage points during this week of wrangling and idiocy, but it doesn't make sense to bring up the stocks markets to indicate how unstable the situation is. It's only really gone down 1% or less each day, and frankly I think most people were surprised by how little it fell. Overall, The stock markets are doing very well, up 16% from this time last year, and up 2.7% since the GOP took over the House of Representatives. Retirement plans are not suffering too terribly unless for some reason you had to cash it out yesterday or today.

Frankly I wonder if the debt ceiling crisis has anything at all to do with the 4.5% decline this week, given that this decline is more than accounted for by the awful economic news that keeps emerging. That it's only gone down 4.5% this week is shocking, considering we may be in for a double-dip recession regardless of the resolution of the debt ceiling crisis.

It would make more sense to headline Mark II of the Simpson/Bowles commission, which you are surprised that more people don't focus on even has you give top billing to a relatively unimpressive stock market decline.

I heard somewhere today (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 06:39:32 PM EST

that in the days before TARP was passed the market ran off 700 points and we were warned that we must have TARP to save the world.

So we got TARP and the market collapsed to around 6200....

I don't think anyone actually knows what is what and when or where.

All I can think is that the intent here is (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by inclusiveheart on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 06:40:40 PM EST

to crash the economy entirely.

No Problem for Repulbicans Like Canter (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by pluege2 on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 06:55:27 PM EST

they shorted America's future.

Tanking the US economy will make republican pols a lot of money.

Jeralyn, when the president and the (5.00 / 2) (#51)
by Anne on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 10:55:29 PM EST

Democratic caucus can't offer anything that is even remotely in opposition to the GOP plans, they aren't capitulating, and they're not even really cooperating - they're leading. Leading on an agenda of spending cuts and cuts to the safety net. Obama's Grand Bargain, which he believes in so strongly that he dragged out these "negotiations" trying to sell it, is not a plan of capitulation.

We are being marched against our will down Austerity Road, and Dems are not just doing nothing to stop it, they are actively behind it.

Personal security company stocks (none / 0) (#6)
by Dadler on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 03:38:00 PM EST

They should be a decent bet for some time to come, as the plutocracy looks to protect itself from the rest of us.

I also noticed Costco online is now selling, for $3000, a year's worth of dehydrated food for 4 people, 3 meals per day.

Armageddon anyone?

We don't (none / 0) (#34)
by Zorba on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 06:33:58 PM EST

have a year's worth of dehydrated food, but we've got a year's worth of canned food. Plus a lot of frozen meat.


We'll knock quietly at the back door (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by Dadler on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 07:00:47 PM EST

And we may have a small dog with us.


: We've (5.00 / 0) (#46)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 07:14:02 PM EST

all threatened to show up on Zorba's doorstep!

: I hope you all like venison (5.00 / 2) (#56)
by Zorba on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 08:36:03 AM EST

Because if it comes down to the worst, that will be our main source of meat. That and rabbit. And the occasional wild turkey. The veggies and fruit- we grow and can our own. We can even probably rig up some kind of greenhouse for fresh veggies in the winter- we certainly have the room. Kdog and the Pirate Crew can sneak up to the mountain on occasion and bring us fish, in exchange for fruits and vegetables. ;-)

Perfect fare to fit in the hold (none / 0) (#58)
by Towanda on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 09:32:01 AM EST

of our pirate ship!

And I belong to Costco, mateys -- for years now, despite a bit more distance to trek than to Sam's Club, since seeing the disparity in the two companies' treatment of their workers as well as in their political donations and causes.

Btw, for others with aging eyes who need to see how fast and far Medicaid is receding from us, we recently got our eye tests and eyeglasses at Costco and saved a lot.


"faux-Dems" (none / 0) (#15)
by Andreas on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 04:11:53 PM EST

These are the real Democrats.

It is time to build a revolutionary working class mass party to against both despotic parties of the rich.

Yep. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by tworivers on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 04:52:44 PM EST

I agree that we need new parties. I think also that progressives need to take to the street. Online advocacy is not enough. We need to do more actions along the lines of what usuncut.org does. We need demonstrations along the lines of what happened in Egypt. We need to keep the spotlight on the increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of the few in this country, and keep hammering away at it until the public is fully aware of how much the two parties in Washington have helped rig the system in favor of corporations and the wealthiest 1%.

The vast majority of the country is rightfully disgusted with the New Oligarchy. The public sentiment is there, i think. Somebody just has to channel it.


Do you pronounce your moniker (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by Towanda on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 09:52:05 AM EST

as "trivers" because you're a Sconnie? If so, then you can join us in the streets again for the next 10 days -- as I will be doing, coming home to work in the campaign for the recall elections on August 9. (Darn, I missed the demonstration yesterday in Not My Darling's district, the number-one target district, with the funeral for Social Security and Medicare.)

From Wisconsin to the world, millions now have been taking to the streets all year, as you can see here in another great song and video from themadlefty. And today, Save Our Schools has thousands of teachers marching on D.C.

Really, I have to wonder sometimes about the repeated calls here for people to take to the streets. We are doing so, we have been doing so. So join us.


Hopefully, you all will make (none / 0) (#60)
by MO Blue on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 10:25:56 AM EST

taking to the streets popular. If not popular, at least more acceptable than it has been in the recent past.

Good luck to Wisconsin.


Again, millions are already in the streets (none / 0) (#62)
by Towanda on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 11:50:38 AM EST

in all 50 states (see earlier videos posted) and across the world, so doing so already is "popular" . . . but it may take taking a laptop along, if it's too scary to get off the computer for a while!


Not plugged in evidently (none / 0) (#66)
by MO Blue on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 12:41:38 PM EST

Haven't seen anything like that advertised or reported in my area.

A street protest of one would not accomplish much but screw up my knee and my back. Bugging my Congresscritters probably won't accomplish much either, but it is easier on my body.

Anyway glad people are assembling in numbers in your area.

: I find the info in social media (none / 0) (#67)
by Towanda on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 05:28:56 PM EST

so search for blogs and Facebook pages by, say, teachers or other public employees in your area, your state. Once plugged into one, you get info on more and begin to find out just how much is not being covered by mass media.
For example, the SOS -- Save Our Schools -- march on Washington today, with teachers and parents and others from every state. It may get a small mention on some network, but only because celebrities such as Matt Damon have joined the battle and are there. I just got an FB video of Damon calling for the recall of Wisconsin's Walker.
Btw, one of the hardest-working showbiz names who has been working for Dems in the current legislative recalls there, criss-crossing the state as a volunteer at fundraising events, is Bowzer (Jon Baumann) from the old Sha Na Na group -- the guy with the great deep voice! He has been featured in some marvelous, funny videos there, too. And he has said that he is on call to come to any state where public workers need him, because he owes it to his teachers.

Billion dollar bet made against U.S. (none / 0) (#28)
by Dadler on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 05:51:33 PM EST

Somebody knows something the rest of us don't. And they have the juice to profit from the pain.

Someone dropped a bomb on the bond market Thursday - a $1 billion Armageddon trade betting the United States will lose its AAA credit rating.
In one moment, an invisible trader placed a single trade that moved the most liquid debt market in the world.
The massive trade wasn't placed in bonds themselves; it was placed in the futures market.
The trade was for block trades of 5,370 10-year Treasury futures executed at 124-03 and 3,100 Treasury bond futures executed at 125-01.
The value of the trade was about $850 million dollars. In simple terms, if that was a direct bond buy, no one would be talking about it.
However, with the use of futures, you have to have margin capacity behind the trade. That means with a single push of a button someone was willing to commit more than $1 billion of real capital to this trade with expectations of a 10-to-1 return ratio.
You only do this if you see an edge.

Care to guess who has that (none / 0) (#35)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 06:36:31 PM EST

kind of cash??

Soros??


an offshore hedge fund (none / 0) (#38)
by The Addams Family on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 06:42:00 PM EST

The King of Cash (none / 0) (#39)
by CoralGables on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 06:43:30 PM EST

is Microsoft. But they have bigger fish in mind if the market drops.


Apple... (none / 0) (#49)
by Romberry on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 09:30:38 PM EST

...is actually the King of Cash these days. Apple Corp is sitting on close to 80 billion in cash reserves. (There's an argument to be had about any publicly traded corp sitting on that much cash rather than using it to declare dividends, but I digress.) Microsoft? By comparison, MS is sitting on a relatively paltry 51-52 billion.


: You are correct (none / 0) (#50)
by CoralGables on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 09:57:35 PM EST

I think my choice is a mere distant second to the mighty Apple. I do suspect Microsoft, Apple and also Berkshire Hathaway will be sitting quietly by and probably become strong buyers (buybacks for some, buying whole companies for another) should we see a major drop off in the markets.

Keyser Soze (none / 0) (#43)
by Dadler on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 06:53:45 PM EST

The usual suspects. Ain't that many of them.


Richard Koch? David Koch? (none / 0) (#61)
by Yman on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 11:42:51 AM EST

Richard Devos? B. Wayne Hughes? Harold Simmons? Jerry Perenchio? Robert Rowling? Richard Scaife?

We're just guessing, ... right?

BTW - Why is "Richard" such a popular name among wealthy conservatives?


Because their class likes being (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by Towanda on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 11:51:19 AM EST

Dicks?


: "Richard" ... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by Yman on Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 12:30:34 PM EST

... "envy"?