3 ms·

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. Fo

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.
- bradleyjg 6y ago
  If I say action X hurts the poor and you say if we lived in an entirely different society then action X wouldn’t hurt the poor, have we actually disagreed? —- For the other part I agree companies aren’t charities. My entire point here is that people should quit trying to pressure them into acting like charities. Let companies make money, that’s what they are good at. If you want to eliminate ICE engines pass a law.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    > people should quit trying to pressure them into acting like charities You keep saying "pressure" as if it's a magic word. How can you pressure a business to do something against what it believes to be its own (or its shareholders') interest? All kinds of people lobby companies and government to do literally everything under the sun. Companies don't listen to all of them. They only listen to the ones they think are good for them. And if they choose wrong, the market will punish them. Right? On a separate note "companies shouldn't be woke" people also tend to be among the most ardent worshippers of the free market. Somehow their faith is shaken when companies do something they personally disagree with - then they fall back to "they're just giving in to activist pressure". I'm not saying you're like that. Just pointing out the irony. Re: more expensive cars hurting the poor in North America, I'm honestly skeptical. If anything more expensive cars will be a forcing function towards developing more affordable housing close to work and better public transportation systems. Kind of an inverse Jevon's paradox. This will save the poor money in the long term.

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.

bradleyjg 6y ago
If I say action X hurts the poor and you say if we lived in an entirely different society then action X wouldn’t hurt the poor, have we actually disagreed? —- For the other part I agree companies aren’t charities. My entire point here is that people should quit trying to pressure them into acting like charities. Let companies make money, that’s what they are good at. If you want to eliminate ICE engines pass a law.
- triceratops 6y ago
  > people should quit trying to pressure them into acting like charities You keep saying "pressure" as if it's a magic word. How can you pressure a business to do something against what it believes to be its own (or its shareholders') interest? All kinds of people lobby companies and government to do literally everything under the sun. Companies don't listen to all of them. They only listen to the ones they think are good for them. And if they choose wrong, the market will punish them. Right? On a separate note "companies shouldn't be woke" people also tend to be among the most ardent worshippers of the free market. Somehow their faith is shaken when companies do something they personally disagree with - then they fall back to "they're just giving in to activist pressure". I'm not saying you're like that. Just pointing out the irony. Re: more expensive cars hurting the poor in North America, I'm honestly skeptical. If anything more expensive cars will be a forcing function towards developing more affordable housing close to work and better public transportation systems. Kind of an inverse Jevon's paradox. This will save the poor money in the long term.