response 16 of 104:

Jun 24 23:46 UTC 2003

Quite recently tobacco use was overwhelmingly socially acceptable. It
isn't that tobacco companies "sins" have caught up with them, but rather
they have moved into new definitions of "sins". 

response 18 of 104:

Jun 25 02:06 UTC 2003

re resp:14: I may not have made my question clear.  Would you invest 
in a "socially responsible" fund which you thought might be picking 
companies who favored things you strongly opposed?  You know, Domino's 
Pizza, Amway, RJR/Nabisco, companies like that?

For me, "socially responsible" means "politically inclined against 
me".  The people who seem to me to be most likely to pick something 
called "socially responsible" are people like you... and, um, I would 
imagine, in elections of wide enough scope that we both vote, we 
cancel each other's votes most of the time.  I very rarely agree with 
you on political issues.

It's foolish to pick ways to spend your money that are designed to 
oppose what you want.  I would rather pick mutual funds that are 
neutral, rather than ones selected to go against me.

I imagine my point is understood if it's ever going to be.

response 20 of 104:

Jun 25 11:44 UTC 2003

Sindi, I don't like the tobacco companies either.  I've got kids, and 
I hate the idea of them becoming smokers.  I'm not exactly in favor of 
sending the tobacco companies overseas to attack the children of other 
countries, either.

Struggle with this idea for a bit, just to humor me: imagine that 
Nabisco does something that really excites those who pick "socially 
responsible" companies.  I'm not going to specify what because this is 
hypothetical, and you might argue with whatever example I made up.  
(Nabisco itself is a hypothetical example, and you're arguing with it, 
so that's why I think that could happen.)  Imagine Nabisco does 
something marvelous and exciting.  Then you find your "socially 
responsible" mutual fund has started buying Nabisco, even though 
Nabisco is a tobacco company.  What would you do at that point?

I don't play the "socially responsible investing" game because this 
sort of thing is pretty likely to happen to me.  It's not going to 
happen with Nabisco, my hypothetical example, but it seems likely that 
a "socially responsible" fund is going to pick things that are as 
repugnant to me as Nabisco would be to you.

I don't invest to make social statements.  I'm not much interested in 
investing and the stock market anyway, which is why I use mutual funds 
in the first place.  I'd have to get a whole lot more interested than 
I am to seek out mutual funds which have the right attitude for my 
preferences.

Sigh.  I guess as long as someone is willing and able to mis-portray 
what I say, I'm willing or compelled to explain myself again and 
again, forever.  I wonder if this disorder is treatable.

response 22 of 104:

Jun 25 12:31 UTC 2003

Actually, I'm just curious what sorts of investments you'd find repugnant,
jep.  A quick web search shows that the "socially responsible" investments
avoid tobacco, arms, nuclear issues, gambling, pollution, animal testing
abortion (presumably anti-abortion companies, or perhaps companies that
actually have a position on abortion at all).  

I'm not trying to make a point or set you up, I'm just curious.

response 24 of 104:

Jun 25 13:50 UTC 2003

Re #22:  Actually, if they take an anti-choice position on abortion, I
         wouldn't want to support them.

response 26 of 104:

Jun 25 14:26 UTC 2003

I have turned down paid work which I considered immoral, but one time I
accidentally accepted a job which turned out to be for a tobacco company. 
When they paid me, I donated the money to the American Lung Association.  I
told that translation agency I was not going to do any more tobacco
translations.  (Previous ones appeared to be anti-tobacco).

response 32 of 104:

Jun 25 17:39 UTC 2003

(Nabisco, like Kraft, was bought by a tobacco company that was trying to
diversify its products, so that it would not have to go out of business
when its only product became illegal, or at least sufficiently unacceptable
that its sale could no longer support the company.  Blaming Nabisco for
RJR's activities is like blaming the horse for the knight's stabbing you.)

response 36 of 104:

Jun 25 18:03 UTC 2003

Regarding Nabisco, see
        http://www.tobacco.neu.edu/tcu/3-4/rjr_split.htm
rjr plans to split food & tobacco, & sell off international operations.

I don't know what Rane means by "recently", but by the early 70's, as a
kid, I was able to tell that however "socially acceptable" smoking was,
it was still a nasty health risk and a bad idea.  So I'd have to say
even then they weren't behaving in a "socially responsible" fashion, and
a prudent investor might well have decided to invest elsewhere to avoid
the risk when society decided that wasn't "acceptable" anymore.

It's usually not easy to decide what the future holds, and even in the
present, many large companies display an ambiguous mix of "good" and
"bad" behavior.  So, deciding what is "morally responsible" isn't always
easy.  It is of course also quite difficult to decide which companies
are going to make lots of money.  Still, jep seems to be assuming that
investing in "socially responsible" organizations will worsen his
chances of making money.  I think it's more likely there's either no
connection at all between social responsibility and profitability (in
which case, it doesn't hurt you to do this), or, there's even a slight
positive link between social responsibility and profitability (it
certainly doesn't hurt to avoid investing in companies that are about to
get their asses sued off.)

response 38 of 104:

Jun 25 18:12 UTC 2003

I think trying to decide if a major corporations is "good" or "bad" with
respect to any particular set of values is very hard.  Most engage in such
a diverse set of activities.

I remember when lots of people were boycotting Exxon after the Valdez
incident.  Some of them prefered to buy from Shell instead.  Shell's oil
tankers never spill oil.  Shell doesn't have any oil tankers.  The oil you
buy at Shell stations gets shipped on tankers belonging to other companies.
For all I know, might be on Exxon tankers.  Whatever tankers they get shipped
on, they probably have accidents.  I don't see the point in boycotting one
oil company in preference for another.  If oil spills piss you off, your
only effective strategy is to buy less oil.