4 ms·

There is a big difference between an individual "voting with their wallet" and foundational institutions like banks pursuing activist policies.

cortesoft 5y ago
But 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 5y ago
  For 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 5y ago
    There'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 5y ago
    If banking is a utility, are they required to invest in anyone who asks?
Pfhreak 5y ago
You'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 5y ago
Is 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 5y ago
So 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.

cortesoft 5y ago

But 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 5y ago
For 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 5y ago
  There'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 5y ago
  If banking is a utility, are they required to invest in anyone who asks?

Pfhreak 5y ago

You'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 5y ago

Is 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 5y ago

So 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.