3 ms·
If the package has been labelled "bomb", I would blame them. And that's the point here, they know what it's going to be invested in. Yes, it's commercially imp
by yokaze 7y ago
If the package has been labelled "bomb", I would blame them.
And that's the point here, they know what it's going to be invested in.
Yes, it's commercially imperative to trade, unless it doesn't. And people getting aware of it and complaining is one way, it becomes more of a liability.
- short_sells_poo 7y agoIt is really a tragedy of the prisoner's dilemma. If a single bank decides to do the right thing and not offer fossil fuel investments to their clients, their market share will diminish. The people who made the right call will be fired by their superiors (ultimately the shareholders), who will see the bank shares decline compared to the competitors who didn't make the moral decision. The end result: the people who made the call for the long term good won't be around to actually see it implemented. The problem needs to be fixed in a broader scope. The entire corporate incentive structure is broken.