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.

response 46 of 104:

Jun 26 05:09 UTC 2003

The problem with saying that RJR's activities aren't Nabisco's fault is that
at this point Nabsico is RJR.  It may well be that the original owners of
Nabisco has absolutely nothing to do with tobacco, but the original owners
of Nabisco aren't who gets the money when you buy Nabsico products these days.

response 48 of 104:

Jun 26 12:55 UTC 2003

Nothing.  You're fine.