4 ms·

Except then people come out of the woodwork to say that government shouldn't be legislating morals, and that if it's really an issue investors would avoid inves

Except then people come out of the woodwork to say that government shouldn't be legislating morals, and that if it's really an issue investors would avoid investing in funds they find immoral. Which is exactly what's happening here.

bradleyjg 6y ago
The right answers are leaf nodes—-either voters or consumers. If consumers act, intermediary institutions like banks will naturally follow. Ditto if the laws change.
- nullspace 6y ago
  I think it’s kinda weird that you exclude investors out of the leaf node, which is what is happening here.
  - bradleyjg 6y ago
    The big investors in this case are themselves intermediary institutions.
- fakedang 6y ago
  Except in this case, consumers can't act. Can consumers vote with their wallets to prevent using technologies that are excessively polluting, say a necessary chemical which they use only indirectly, one that has a polluting manufacturing process? Can poorer car buyers opt for any thing cheaper than the currently available options? Or rather, because there are no options available for them, should they simply not use cars instead of using the polluting gasoline cars?
  - bradleyjg 6y ago
    Should that choice be taken out of their hands by non-elected intermediary institutions? Because that’s what’s going on here.
    - fakedang 6y ago
      There wasn't even much of a choice in the first place.
    - triceratops 6y ago
      > choice be taken out of their hands by non-elected intermediary institutions Why can't they go to a different bank if they feel so strongly about it?
  - gruez 6y ago
    >Except in this case, consumers can't act. Can consumers vote with their wallets to prevent using technologies that are excessively polluting, say a necessary chemical which they use only indirectly, one that has a polluting manufacturing process? Pesticides are a necessary chemical to industrial food production. Consumers can opt to prevent that from being used/manufactured by buying organic[1]. Organic goods are widely available in US supermarkets. The fact that organics haven't outpaced conventional foods tells you all you need to know about consumer preferences. >Can poorer car buyers opt for any thing cheaper than the currently available options? Or rather, because there are no options available for them, should they simply not use cars instead of using the polluting gasoline cars? So according to you, poor car buyers are forced to choose between a gas guzzler or no car at all, because the fuel efficient cars are too expensive. Clearly the right thing to do is... stop gas guzzlers from manufactured in the first place so they're forced to not have a car? [1] organic allows certain kinds of "natural" pesticides, which might or might not be worse than their banned counterparts, but this is another can of worms
    - triceratops 6y ago
      > Clearly the right thing to do is... stop gas guzzlers from manufactured in the first place so they're forced to not have a car? Or tax gas guzzlers more? Provide tax incentives for fuel-efficient and electric cars? Both?
      - bradleyjg 6y ago
        Both of those are things elected governments can, and maybe should, do. But what the article is talking about is having banks refuse to do business with e.g. Ford unless it stops making gasoline cars. This does nothing to help the poor but environmentally conscious person. It simply removes a (perhaps non-ideal) option that currently exists.
        triceratops 6y ago
        > Both of those are things elected governments can, and maybe should, do. Agreed. And what banks do has (or should have) little bearing on that. > This does nothing to help the poor but environmentally conscious person. That's debatable.* But in any case, banks aren't charities. Modern capitalism holds that they have no obligation to anyone except their shareholders. *For actually "poor" people, car ownership is a burden. They have to pay high interest rates and tie up a significant portion of their capital just to get around. Whereas most developed countries (and even a great many developing countries) have efficient public transportation, which doesn't have these downsides for poor people. Also the poor have more to lose from climate change, so arguably these banks are serving them better in the long-term by divesting from carbon.
- triceratops 6y ago
  Consumers and investors are free to find different banks if they disagree with these policies. These banks believe this is what their customers actually want them to do.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Why is that a problem? If there's not sufficient voter support for legislating morals then democracies shouldn't be legislating morals. The voters should get what they want even if it's stupid.
- MereInterest 6y ago
  I wasn't trying to imply that there was. More that any push toward long-term stability gets a ridiculous amount of pushback on the methods. If it is done through legislation, the free-market libertarians come out in droves to say "No! Let the market decide!" If it is done through market forces, the free-market libertarians come out in droves to say "No! The market should be amoral and profit-oriented! Let legislation decide!" I recognize that these may be entirely separate subsets of free-market libertarians, but it's enough to make me grow frustrated at the entire group.

bradleyjg 6y ago

The right answers are leaf nodes—-either voters or consumers. If consumers act, intermediary institutions like banks will naturally follow. Ditto if the laws change.

nullspace 6y ago
I think it’s kinda weird that you exclude investors out of the leaf node, which is what is happening here.
- bradleyjg 6y ago
  The big investors in this case are themselves intermediary institutions.
fakedang 6y ago
Except in this case, consumers can't act. Can consumers vote with their wallets to prevent using technologies that are excessively polluting, say a necessary chemical which they use only indirectly, one that has a polluting manufacturing process? Can poorer car buyers opt for any thing cheaper than the currently available options? Or rather, because there are no options available for them, should they simply not use cars instead of using the polluting gasoline cars?
- bradleyjg 6y ago
  Should that choice be taken out of their hands by non-elected intermediary institutions? Because that’s what’s going on here.
  - fakedang 6y ago
    There wasn't even much of a choice in the first place.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    > choice be taken out of their hands by non-elected intermediary institutions Why can't they go to a different bank if they feel so strongly about it?
- gruez 6y ago
  >Except in this case, consumers can't act. Can consumers vote with their wallets to prevent using technologies that are excessively polluting, say a necessary chemical which they use only indirectly, one that has a polluting manufacturing process? Pesticides are a necessary chemical to industrial food production. Consumers can opt to prevent that from being used/manufactured by buying organic[1]. Organic goods are widely available in US supermarkets. The fact that organics haven't outpaced conventional foods tells you all you need to know about consumer preferences. >Can poorer car buyers opt for any thing cheaper than the currently available options? Or rather, because there are no options available for them, should they simply not use cars instead of using the polluting gasoline cars? So according to you, poor car buyers are forced to choose between a gas guzzler or no car at all, because the fuel efficient cars are too expensive. Clearly the right thing to do is... stop gas guzzlers from manufactured in the first place so they're forced to not have a car? [1] organic allows certain kinds of "natural" pesticides, which might or might not be worse than their banned counterparts, but this is another can of worms
  - triceratops 6y ago
    > Clearly the right thing to do is... stop gas guzzlers from manufactured in the first place so they're forced to not have a car? Or tax gas guzzlers more? Provide tax incentives for fuel-efficient and electric cars? Both?
    - bradleyjg 6y ago
      Both of those are things elected governments can, and maybe should, do. But what the article is talking about is having banks refuse to do business with e.g. Ford unless it stops making gasoline cars. This does nothing to help the poor but environmentally conscious person. It simply removes a (perhaps non-ideal) option that currently exists.
      - triceratops 6y ago
        > Both of those are things elected governments can, and maybe should, do. Agreed. And what banks do has (or should have) little bearing on that. > This does nothing to help the poor but environmentally conscious person. That's debatable.* But in any case, banks aren't charities. Modern capitalism holds that they have no obligation to anyone except their shareholders. *For actually "poor" people, car ownership is a burden. They have to pay high interest rates and tie up a significant portion of their capital just to get around. Whereas most developed countries (and even a great many developing countries) have efficient public transportation, which doesn't have these downsides for poor people. Also the poor have more to lose from climate change, so arguably these banks are serving them better in the long-term by divesting from carbon.
triceratops 6y ago
Consumers and investors are free to find different banks if they disagree with these policies. These banks believe this is what their customers actually want them to do.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

Why is that a problem? If there's not sufficient voter support for legislating morals then democracies shouldn't be legislating morals. The voters should get what they want even if it's stupid.

MereInterest 6y ago
I wasn't trying to imply that there was. More that any push toward long-term stability gets a ridiculous amount of pushback on the methods. If it is done through legislation, the free-market libertarians come out in droves to say "No! Let the market decide!" If it is done through market forces, the free-market libertarians come out in droves to say "No! The market should be amoral and profit-oriented! Let legislation decide!" I recognize that these may be entirely separate subsets of free-market libertarians, but it's enough to make me grow frustrated at the entire group.