response 4 of 104:

Jun 24 03:29 UTC 2003

re resp:2: I disagree that I think like a drug dealer.  I don't seek 
out someone else to spend my money to promote what they think is the 
good of society.  If I go to a restaurant, I go there for lunch.  If I 
go to a financial planner, I go to make money.  If I want to promote 
the good of society, I am perfectly capable of sending my money myself 
to where I think it will do the most good as I define "good".

re resp:3: You don't believe in drugs?  I believe the pharmaceutical 
industry probably contributed more to the "good of society" (by doing 
what would make them money) than just about any other industry in the 
20th century.  The eradication of polio and smallpox, for two obvious 
examples, were enormously beneficial.  I'm hoping someone makes 
themselves rich by finding a cure for AIDS.

response 6 of 104:

Jun 24 06:39 UTC 2003

I'm amused that anyone could think that liberals have a monopoly on "social
responsibility."

response 8 of 104:

Jun 24 08:35 UTC 2003

re#3: You invest in ebay?  Me to.  I think its a pretty good investment
in spite of it being the largest "Fencing Operation" in the world. (By
its own published statistics it has way more criminal operations
(auctions) going on at any given time than even the chicago mob in its
prime and its all "legal".  I figure "caveat emptor" for the moment.
re#2: No, he thinks like a free market capitalist. The drug dealer is a
monopolist who not only kills his customers but uses force to prevent
competing vendors.  (witness Micro$oft)  The difference is merely the
economy of scale.  "What is reprehensible in the small scale is
admirable on the large."  (Although, I dumped Micro$oft as its business
model was no longer viable in my opinion, too many of the addicts
stopped buying the product or working for future returns instead of real
wages - no complaints on the ROI.)
re#7: and UPS doesn't use airplanes, cars or large vans running on
petrochemicals?  What planet you live on?  And the story about the alarm
clocks dates from a 1960's novel written about the US automobile
industry as I recall. 

response 10 of 104:

Jun 24 12:48 UTC 2003

re resp:9: I would not choose to support a tobacco company to make 
money for myself, if that's what you're asking.

If I could have a mutual fund which included a list of companies I am 
willing to support, those I am not, those I prefer, etc., then I 
wouldn't allow my money to go to any tobacco companies.  I wouldn't 
pick Coca Cola, either.

The mutual funds from which I can pick don't work that way.  A couple 
are "socially responsible", which means they say they follow a list of 
criteria which sound glowingly pleasant.  I don't assume that their 
choices are necessarily *my* choices.  I imagine they're cheerfully 
funding companies which provide abortions in 3rd world countries, 
giving preference to companies which fund Greenpeace and PETA, and 
generally funding activism which I oppose.

How about you?  Would you pick "socially responsible" if you thought 
some of the companies were on the list because they did things you 
strongly opposed?

response 12 of 104:

Jun 24 14:14 UTC 2003

Judging from a quick google on "Christian investment", yes.

response 14 of 104:

Jun 24 21:17 UTC 2003

Re: #10  Absolutely.  I also voted for my U of M retirement 
funds to not invest in companies that produce cigarettes.

It's very easy to have a social conscience and invest
in good stocks and bonds.  If you want to.

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).