5 ms·

What companies would you invest in if you're in charge of Berkshire amount of money?

harshreality 9y ago
I don't know. So the premise is: "We have to invest in companies that are ethical nightmares because there's nowhere else good to put our money." How does that absolve you from ethical responsibility? Shareholders driven by money (as almost all are) will turn a blind eye toward harm the companies are doing as long as they can get away with it, and the courts and laws lag decades behind scientific consensus, sometimes longer when the companies themselves engage in muddying the waters about the underlying science claims made about their products or the externalities of their business. If you want to stay out of prison, you do what Buffett does. You make light of ethical concerns because taking them seriously makes people take notice, and maybe stop drinking so much coke or eating so much fast food, and then you've indirectly hurt your stock holdings, and that would be a disservice to your shareholders. I guess what you do, if you want to be ethical, is don't buy Coke or whatever ethically dubious company it is, and hope a group of forward-thinking philanthropic billionaires buys it instead, and that they'll move mountains to reform or pivot the company to a more ethical business model. I don't see how ethics can mean anything at all if it's not ethically bad to hold shares in a company (BH owns what, 10% of Coke?), if you're holding it for the financial returns generated by its current business model, rather than to reform the company's unethical behavior through your stock ownership. You can say it's inevitable that someone will hold the stock and someone will get those potential dividends. However, if everyone takes a moral stand, nobody will buy the stock, the stock craters, and then someone can pick up the company for a song, then do something better like using all the r&d and marketing power for developing good food and convincing people it's trendy and tastes great, which seems to affect customer perception of taste more than actual taste. Nobody wants to pay current market cap (or 51% of it, at least) for one of those giant unethical companies just to try to use that ownership to reform the company into something more ethical. Those companies have boxed themselves into a corner through marketing. They've convinced so many people to consume unhealthy products or products whose manufacture harms the environment, and they make such a good profit out of it, that the market cap is too high and it's too expensive for reformers to buy a majority stake and do something better. Just because I don't see any solution doesn't mean I'm going to throw up my hands and call it ethical to hold Coca Cola stock. It seems to be all the rage to redefine words though, so if you redefine ethical to mean direct ethical implications, an investment in Coke is no longer unethical. Problem solved, I guess?
- valuearb 9y ago
  Your ethics are selective and befuddling.

I don't know. So the premise is: "We have to invest in companies that are ethical nightmares because there's nowhere else good to put our money." How does that absolve you from ethical responsibility? Shareholders driven by money (as almost all are) will turn a blind eye toward harm the companies are doing as long as they can get away with it, and the courts and laws lag decades behind scientific consensus, sometimes longer when the companies themselves engage in muddying the waters about the underlying science claims made about their products or the externalities of their business. If you want to stay out of prison, you do what Buffett does. You make light of ethical concerns because taking them seriously makes people take notice, and maybe stop drinking so much coke or eating so much fast food, and then you've indirectly hurt your stock holdings, and that would be a disservice to your shareholders. I guess what you do, if you want to be ethical, is don't buy Coke or whatever ethically dubious company it is, and hope a group of forward-thinking philanthropic billionaires buys it instead, and that they'll move mountains to reform or pivot the company to a more ethical business model. I don't see how ethics can mean anything at all if it's not ethically bad to hold shares in a company (BH owns what, 10% of Coke?), if you're holding it for the financial returns generated by its current business model, rather than to reform the company's unethical behavior through your stock ownership. You can say it's inevitable that someone will hold the stock and someone will get those potential dividends. However, if everyone takes a moral stand, nobody will buy the stock, the stock craters, and then someone can pick up the company for a song, then do something better like using all the r&d and marketing power for developing good food and convincing people it's trendy and tastes great, which seems to affect customer perception of taste more than actual taste. Nobody wants to pay current market cap (or 51% of it, at least) for one of those giant unethical companies just to try to use that ownership to reform the company into something more ethical. Those companies have boxed themselves into a corner through marketing. They've convinced so many people to consume unhealthy products or products whose manufacture harms the environment, and they make such a good profit out of it, that the market cap is too high and it's too expensive for reformers to buy a majority stake and do something better. Just because I don't see any solution doesn't mean I'm going to throw up my hands and call it ethical to hold Coca Cola stock. It seems to be all the rage to redefine words though, so if you redefine ethical to mean direct ethical implications, an investment in Coke is no longer unethical. Problem solved, I guess?

valuearb 9y ago
Your ethics are selective and befuddling.