3 ms·
Every person and institution has a right to decide what things they're willing to support with their money. That's why we have the expression "voting with your
by nickelcitymario 6y ago
Every person and institution has a right to decide what things they're willing to support with their money. That's why we have the expression "voting with your wallet".
If a bank decides not to invest in some given company or sector, that's not "public policy making". That's just the bank exercising their right to decide where to put their money. Indeed, they can't do anything less. Whether they invest or not, they are making a decision that has social impacts.
If the bank instead paid lobbyists to persuade politicians to create new rules (and I'm sure they do), that would be closer to "public policy making".
Also, this concept of "cancel culture" is absurd. People and companies have always risked falling from public grace if they say or do things that go against the values of the majority of the public.
Was it "cancel culture" when Studio 54 got shut down? Or when Tim Leary got fired from Harvard? Or when Ellen's sitcom got cancelled?
Right or wrong, each was merely the result of going against the grain. Today, the cultural middle has shifted, and so some groups are finding themselves in a position they're unaccustomed to: being in the minority. (Or more accurately: not being _consistently_ in the majority.)
But the consequences are no different than those faced by any minority, and this is healthy for society. It's never a good thing when one group has so much social leverage that they get to dictate the terms for everybody else. I would argue that today, there's no such thing as a majority group. We're all minorities to varying degrees, and we all need to learn how to get along. I think that's a net positive, albeit a very messy one.
- BitwiseFool 6y agoThere is a big difference between an individual "voting with their wallet" and foundational institutions like banks pursuing activist policies.
- cortesoft 6y agoBut how is this different than any other investment choice they make trying to maximize their profits? Investors and banks are looking at the data and thinking, “if we don’t do something about climate change, it will really hurt our long term profits”, so they use their power to prevent the thing that will lower their profits. Isn’t that what a corporation is supposed to do?
- BitwiseFool 6y agoFor some corporations, yes, that is what they are supposed to do. However I make a distinction when it comes to the size of the company and the type of service they provide. There are some businesses and industries that I believe need to act like impartial utilities. Banking is one such sector.
- nickelcitymario 6y agoThere's no such thing as an impartial utility. Every move impacts some groups positively and others negatively. You might be able to argue for the existence of a naive utility, one that doesn't bother being aware of the impacts of its investments. But that seems kinda silly in my books.
- admax88q 6y agoIf banking is a utility, are they required to invest in anyone who asks?
- Pfhreak 6y agoYou've labeled this an "activist policy", but it seems to me that label actually means "a policy I personally disagree with." If banks decided to invest in carbon producing companies, is that an activist policy? What about if they invest in US companies? Or invest in developing countries? What makes this (avoiding investments in polluting firms) activist investing while the opposite isn't in your view. Seems hypocritical.
- nickelcitymario 6y agoIs there? Institutions are just organized groups of individuals. Is the difference that one is more effective than the other? Also, why does THIS count as an activist policy, and not literally everything else banks have ever done? There's no such thing as a neutral way to invest money. Every investment sends money towards one group and away from another. We give control of our money to banks with the trust that they are being intentional about how to use it. Why is this an "activist policy" more than anything else?
- triceratops 6y agoSo then you also oppose banks being able to lobby politicians? Fund political campaigns? That's also "activist", right? Should they stop advertising too? Advertising also has a viewpoint, after all.