4 ms·

> American companies are so abusive, that's why I invest on them, You don't think this is immoral?

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
Sound investments and moral vetting often don't align. Some common examples: Housing equity competing with affordable housing. Stocks rise when new top management exploits existing resources for short term gains - making workers and products suffer. It's hard to retire on morals.
- buddylw 3y ago
  No one said morality was easy.
- psychlops 3y ago
  The moral vetting is done by the buyers who purchase goods thereby supporting the companies.
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    > The moral vetting is done by the buyers who purchase goods thereby supporting the companies. Is the purchasing done by the brokers who purchase stocks or the HR dept that chooses a retirement fund or the employee who picks the employer that is least likely to leave them in financial straits? Which of these shouldn't make an immoral investment choice - and should continually vet the ever rotating circumstances of their choices (and be ever ready to jump ship)?
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Dear sir I have not had such a good laugh in a while, you should warn me before saying such funny things. For the most part this does not work. For one, the cheapest product tends to win. Consumers are highly price sensitive. Especially in the case where you have two mostly equal products that are only separated by their immorality in making the product. Second, companies love morality washing. Put up a bunch of advertisements on how good for the world they are at whatever touches their buyers hearts and opens their purse strings. It's all bullshit, using immoral money to buy happy feeling of morality. And lastly companies love buying premium 'moral' brands without much fanfare turning them into their corporate level of depravity while still pretending like the brand is a seperate moral entity. It doesn't fucking work for the end user, between the massive consolidation of companies in must industries giving us no choices, and between the constant amount of work needed to ensure the product you buy isn't owned by vampires it's almost like we need business regulation.
    - psychlops 3y ago
      I am glad I brought joy into your life. Brace yourself for more humor follows! I do not consider consumers as faceless automatons purchasing the cheapest items based on the latest advertisements. They are each intelligent, obligated citizens who vote with purchases every day to elevate the industry they want to enrich. Companies are entities made up of such people and as such do not love (or hate) anything. Consider that your business regulators are also vampires, many of whom previously worked in the industries and may very well return. I suggest that quickly seeking an authoritative solution to a problem is very similar to buyers purchasing the cheapest product based on the latest advertisement.
      - pixl97 3y ago
        >I do not consider consumers as faceless automatons Then you have made a great mistake about the capabilities of your fellow humans and are not paying attention to their actual behaviors. >They are each intelligent Please define your definition of intelligence, there is no common standard definition that is agreed upon, and by the basis of your claim you seem to have a very particular definition. >obligated citizens who vote with purchases By buying the items they can actually afford, hence most commonly the cheapest item. >Companies are entities made up of such people and as such do not love (or hate) anything A convenient fiction you tell yourself, but this is a complete fiction. If I, for example, create a corporate and direct it, the company represents my loves and hates. We see this behavior in a large number of companies. It's funny you bring up anti-authoritarian sentiments, when companies are 100% authoritarian structures kept under control by regulations as to prevent them from simply buying compliance from everyone in the government.
        psychlops 3y ago
        I do not entertain your Hobbesian beliefs so will respectfully disagree. Hopefully one day you find a brighter side of the social aspects of humanity.
        pixl97 3y ago
psychlops 3y ago
If not immoral, then it's cognitive dissonance.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  > If not immoral, then it's cognitive dissonance. This is a good observation. What is our obligation when our cognitive dissonance enables immoral/unethical activity at scale?
  - psychlops 3y ago
    Good question. I suggest pertinent obligations are to reflect on opportunity, incentives and outcomes to ensure that our moral foundations are harmonious with our actions. If, at scale, there is dissonance then I would submit that reflection has not been done.
- Chris2048 3y ago
  > cognitive dissonance morality aside, it's not "cognitive dissonance". That would require "behavior does not align with their values or beliefs", and they never stated their values on the matter.
  - psychlops 3y ago
    I reread what he wrote and you are correct. They may enjoy being a US "vassal" consuming "shitty products".
    - Chris2048 3y ago
      That wouldn't be required; His described actions are to invest in them, he didn't say whether he buys their products. Plus the EU presumably still seem to be a vassal to the US however he acted - unless you are suggesting that relationship should dictate his investment choices?
gabrielgio 3y ago
I think morality is shallow concept to base any analysis, because, in the end, where there is morality when you live in a system based on exploitation of labour?
- jszymborski 3y ago
  "I'm not punching you right now, sir, it's the violent system of oppression we live in."
  - gabrielgio 3y ago
    I'm not advocating for violence, neither endorsing GP's action. I just stated that morality is weak base to judge any action.
    - jszymborski 3y ago
      This way of thinking is so commonly used to launder bad behaviour and really strips individuals of their agency in service of some cynical world view. IMHO.
      - gabrielgio 3y ago
        You mean something like? "If nothing is right/ethical/moral so I can do whatever to the other"

Sound investments and moral vetting often don't align. Some common examples: Housing equity competing with affordable housing. Stocks rise when new top management exploits existing resources for short term gains - making workers and products suffer. It's hard to retire on morals.

buddylw 3y ago
No one said morality was easy.
psychlops 3y ago
The moral vetting is done by the buyers who purchase goods thereby supporting the companies.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  > The moral vetting is done by the buyers who purchase goods thereby supporting the companies. Is the purchasing done by the brokers who purchase stocks or the HR dept that chooses a retirement fund or the employee who picks the employer that is least likely to leave them in financial straits? Which of these shouldn't make an immoral investment choice - and should continually vet the ever rotating circumstances of their choices (and be ever ready to jump ship)?
- pixl97 3y ago
  Dear sir I have not had such a good laugh in a while, you should warn me before saying such funny things. For the most part this does not work. For one, the cheapest product tends to win. Consumers are highly price sensitive. Especially in the case where you have two mostly equal products that are only separated by their immorality in making the product. Second, companies love morality washing. Put up a bunch of advertisements on how good for the world they are at whatever touches their buyers hearts and opens their purse strings. It's all bullshit, using immoral money to buy happy feeling of morality. And lastly companies love buying premium 'moral' brands without much fanfare turning them into their corporate level of depravity while still pretending like the brand is a seperate moral entity. It doesn't fucking work for the end user, between the massive consolidation of companies in must industries giving us no choices, and between the constant amount of work needed to ensure the product you buy isn't owned by vampires it's almost like we need business regulation.
  - psychlops 3y ago
    I am glad I brought joy into your life. Brace yourself for more humor follows! I do not consider consumers as faceless automatons purchasing the cheapest items based on the latest advertisements. They are each intelligent, obligated citizens who vote with purchases every day to elevate the industry they want to enrich. Companies are entities made up of such people and as such do not love (or hate) anything. Consider that your business regulators are also vampires, many of whom previously worked in the industries and may very well return. I suggest that quickly seeking an authoritative solution to a problem is very similar to buyers purchasing the cheapest product based on the latest advertisement.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      >I do not consider consumers as faceless automatons Then you have made a great mistake about the capabilities of your fellow humans and are not paying attention to their actual behaviors. >They are each intelligent Please define your definition of intelligence, there is no common standard definition that is agreed upon, and by the basis of your claim you seem to have a very particular definition. >obligated citizens who vote with purchases By buying the items they can actually afford, hence most commonly the cheapest item. >Companies are entities made up of such people and as such do not love (or hate) anything A convenient fiction you tell yourself, but this is a complete fiction. If I, for example, create a corporate and direct it, the company represents my loves and hates. We see this behavior in a large number of companies. It's funny you bring up anti-authoritarian sentiments, when companies are 100% authoritarian structures kept under control by regulations as to prevent them from simply buying compliance from everyone in the government.
      - psychlops 3y ago
        I do not entertain your Hobbesian beliefs so will respectfully disagree. Hopefully one day you find a brighter side of the social aspects of humanity.
        pixl97 3y ago

psychlops 3y ago

If not immoral, then it's cognitive dissonance.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> If not immoral, then it's cognitive dissonance. This is a good observation. What is our obligation when our cognitive dissonance enables immoral/unethical activity at scale?
- psychlops 3y ago
  Good question. I suggest pertinent obligations are to reflect on opportunity, incentives and outcomes to ensure that our moral foundations are harmonious with our actions. If, at scale, there is dissonance then I would submit that reflection has not been done.
Chris2048 3y ago
> cognitive dissonance morality aside, it's not "cognitive dissonance". That would require "behavior does not align with their values or beliefs", and they never stated their values on the matter.
- psychlops 3y ago
  I reread what he wrote and you are correct. They may enjoy being a US "vassal" consuming "shitty products".
  - Chris2048 3y ago
    That wouldn't be required; His described actions are to invest in them, he didn't say whether he buys their products. Plus the EU presumably still seem to be a vassal to the US however he acted - unless you are suggesting that relationship should dictate his investment choices?

gabrielgio 3y ago

I think morality is shallow concept to base any analysis, because, in the end, where there is morality when you live in a system based on exploitation of labour?

jszymborski 3y ago
"I'm not punching you right now, sir, it's the violent system of oppression we live in."
- gabrielgio 3y ago
  I'm not advocating for violence, neither endorsing GP's action. I just stated that morality is weak base to judge any action.
  - jszymborski 3y ago
    This way of thinking is so commonly used to launder bad behaviour and really strips individuals of their agency in service of some cynical world view. IMHO.
    - gabrielgio 3y ago
      You mean something like? "If nothing is right/ethical/moral so I can do whatever to the other"