blog roll
|
you as a nation have got to think fast, this is a party that's not gonna last...,
2005-04-23 21:16:55
| Main |
Never failing to disappoint....,
2005-04-27 14:38:51
green funds:
SRI returns are compared to conventional investments as a test of their worthiness. Industry advertising claims that SRI funds outperform conventional funds. That is true with some funds. When you look at the makeup of these funds, it's not hard to see why: the stocks held are the same as stocks in conventional funds.
In the first place it seems sort of odd that anybody would think that a publically traded company could be "socially responsible" anyway, figuring the primary responsibility to shareholders, the limited liability laws underwhich it is formed protecting shareholders from responsibility, etc. etc. Even certain progressive ice cream producers produce their share of exploitation. In any case I thought the idea would have been to have investment funds that either boycott or buy out the most egregariously irresponsible, politically reactionary or militaristic stocks - the Wal-Marts, the Coca-Colas, the Exxons, the Caterpillars. Anything more than that would be pragmatically doomed, if you wanted to invest without contributing to military campaigns, pollution, or worker exploitation you'd have prescious little to invest in. Or maybe Portfolio 21, Calvert, Domini, Citizens, Walden, and Women's Equity are proving me wrong. People who really wanted to sleep at night would go join a barter co-op.
For my bourgeoise readers (who knows, I might have some readers) there's more here. I'm at the front steps (top 0.9% or higher, I guess) debating whether to walk through the door. It would be irrational to refuse matching funds in a 401K, but at that point I start "owning" capital I'm not using, which in my worldview is something like the root of all evil. I'm more used to owning debts I'm not using.
:: posted by buermann @ 2005-04-27 13:11:59 CST |
link
|
|
|
|