| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/12/2008 08:38:19 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by ososnilknarf:
You're right. It would be difficult to live in this society we were born into without supporting the oil industry.
But that doesn't mean that we all support everything they do. The pollution created by the industry is the obvious objection, for one.
But it isn't only the consumer who is responsible for the oil industry. It is also our elected representatives. The oil industry is heavily subsidised with taxpayers dollars. This is market manipulation. If it were free market capitalism, the oil would be even more expensive, making other forms of competing energy more feasible and attractive. |
The polution is not created by the industry. It is the consumer who creates the polution. Corperations will do everything in their power to make money. This means cater to the consumer. What the consumer demands, is what will be provided.
I am not knowledgeable on the subject of government subsidation of the oil industry. What confuses me is that the oil corperations are multinational corperations with subsidaries throughout the world. How could one governments subsidies affect the world price of oil? As well, gas is heavily taxed which seems counter productive in terms of money flow. No subsidies, would lead to higher prices from the oil corperations, and less tax from the sale of oil, resulting in the same prices payed by the consumer.
This is free market capitalism. The nine largest oil companies in the world control only 4% of the worlds oil reserves. In terms of crude oil prices, free market capitalism is alive and well. |
|
|
|
06/12/2008 08:39:01 PM · #52 |
Economics is essentially an amoral science, if one decides to make a decision with their money or purchasing decisions based on a personal conviction, the tradeoff is you may be making an economically unsound decision. Does that make it wrong? Of course not, all of us make decisions every day based on personal beliefs that may be harmful to us in one way or another.
In short, invest your money in whatever way lets you sleep at night, but don't complain that your financial situation is not as good as your neighbor's as a result. |
|
|
|
06/12/2008 08:46:14 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by KelvinC:
Originally posted by ososnilknarf:
You're right. It would be difficult to live in this society we were born into without supporting the oil industry.
But that doesn't mean that we all support everything they do. The pollution created by the industry is the obvious objection, for one.
But it isn't only the consumer who is responsible for the oil industry. It is also our elected representatives. The oil industry is heavily subsidised with taxpayers dollars. This is market manipulation. If it were free market capitalism, the oil would be even more expensive, making other forms of competing energy more feasible and attractive. |
The polution is not created by the industry. It is the consumer who creates the polution. Corperations will do everything in their power to make money. This means cater to the consumer. What the consumer demands, is what will be provided.
I am not knowledgeable on the subject of government subsidation of the oil industry. What confuses me is that the oil corperations are multinational corperations with subsidaries throughout the world. How could one governments subsidies affect the world price of oil? As well, gas is heavily taxed which seems counter productive in terms of money flow. No subsidies, would lead to higher prices from the oil corperations, and less tax from the sale of oil, resulting in the same prices payed by the consumer.
This is free market capitalism. The nine largest oil companies in the world control only 4% of the worlds oil reserves. In terms of crude oil prices, free market capitalism is alive and well. |
I'm not sure you can call the oil market "free market capitalism" when nearly 2/3 of the planet's reserves are under the control of a multinational government cartel, which would probably be illegal in America if corporations tried to do in the US what OPEC does around the world. Yes, OPEC's influence is less now that Russia's resources are on the open market, but it still carries substantial supply side control. |
|
|
|
06/12/2008 08:54:24 PM · #54 |
| Invest in the funds and donate the rest.... socially responsible funds are generally poor performers and everyones values are different so a fund is going to have something objectionable in it. I would say invest in index funds/ETF's and skip the managers & higher expenses but that would mix my photg world and my real world -> Read some stuff at diehards.org. |
|
|
|
06/12/2008 08:58:16 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by KelvinC:
I am not knowledgeable on the subject of government subsidation of the oil industry. What confuses me is that the oil corperations are multinational corperations with subsidaries throughout the world. How could one governments subsidies affect the world price of oil? As well, gas is heavily taxed which seems counter productive in terms of money flow. No subsidies, would lead to higher prices from the oil corperations, and less tax from the sale of oil, resulting in the same prices payed by the consumer.
|
You can bet that big oil has some of the best lobbyists around. Wouldn't you expect that they get a big piece of the tax-payer pie? That's what lobbyists do.
Here's an article that explains oil subsidies in USA.
And yeah, I'm talking about the price of gas in the USA. That is what the consumers here are paying, and as we agree, the consumers are what drives this thing. We've been paying too little for gas all along.
I'm just saying if it hadn't been for these subsidies, then the higher price of gas at the pump would have been a driver for alternative, more efficient technologies.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2008 09:01:54 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by robs:
Invest in the funds and donate the rest.... socially responsible funds are generally poor performers |
However, I wouldn't be surprised if the socially responsible funds will be a booming sector sometime in the coming decades.
With more investment in cleaner alternative technologies I think you will soon be able to have your cake and eat it too, by investing in green companies, *and* making money at it.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2008 09:11:59 PM · #57 |
| I think we may possibly see a resurgence of nuclear energy going forward. The technology is already developed so the R & D drain will be less. Economically it probably gives the most bang for the buck, and the industry will tout it as being "green" because of no emissions into the atmosphere, although I don't consider nuclear as a particularly "green" fuel. |
|
|
|
06/12/2008 09:25:21 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by ososnilknarf:
Originally posted by KelvinC:
I am not knowledgeable on the subject of government subsidation of the oil industry. What confuses me is that the oil corperations are multinational corperations with subsidaries throughout the world. How could one governments subsidies affect the world price of oil? As well, gas is heavily taxed which seems counter productive in terms of money flow. No subsidies, would lead to higher prices from the oil corperations, and less tax from the sale of oil, resulting in the same prices payed by the consumer.
|
You can bet that big oil has some of the best lobbyists around. Wouldn't you expect that they get a big piece of the tax-payer pie? That's what lobbyists do.
Here's an article that explains oil subsidies in USA.
And yeah, I'm talking about the price of gas in the USA. That is what the consumers here are paying, and as we agree, the consumers are what drives this thing. We've been paying too little for gas all along.
I'm just saying if it hadn't been for these subsidies, then the higher price of gas at the pump would have been a driver for alternative, more efficient technologies. |
OK cool. Thanks for the article, I'll give it a read. |
|
|
|
06/12/2008 09:52:01 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by ososnilknarf:
However, I wouldn't be surprised if the socially responsible funds will be a booming sector sometime in the coming decades.
With more investment in cleaner alternative technologies I think you will soon be able to have your cake and eat it too, by investing in green companies, *and* making money at it. |
Well most SR funds are not green energy funds... they are somebodies "values" (and that is one of the issues - some exclude big pharma others energy e.t.c. but none prob exactly what you want) but those that are green energy tend to be expensive and also it's not real diversified to invest only in energy :-) besides... what is green? hybrids that need vast amounts of batteries and the ore used in those - strip mining anyone. |
|
|
|
06/12/2008 09:57:03 PM · #60 |
So the concensus seems to be letting me off the hook. I already give to groups that I believe in and I am involved in green initiatives at home and at work. Don't assume that because I want mutual funds themed this way that I don't do anything else.
In fact, the reason I wanted to get this thought out there is that I'm the chair of the "green committee" at my office. I really want to offer some earth-friendly mutual funds. Then people can choose for themselves. That's it.
Thanks for the input. |
|
|
|
06/12/2008 10:05:51 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by egamble:
Originally posted by Louis:
This seems beyond cynical. Wouldn't it be morally preferrable to object to all the horrible things being done to you and your community, irrespective of your own personal gain? Furthermore, wouldn't it be better to organize an effort to stop all those horrible things, rally your community, and make it difficult for profit to be made from suffering? |
Morally preferrable? Yes
Financially Responsible? No
Sometimes the two have to be mutually exclusive. Especially if you have to work for everything you have or will have. It might be different if you are born with a little money. But when you are born with none, passing up the chance to give my family a better life than I started out with would be more morally irresponsible than trying to play Captain Planet with all of my friends. |
Well, your "Captain Planet" remark shows the seriousness with which you considered the alternative to profiteering from suffering. That's fine, I suppose. A better life is not always gained monetarily, however. |
|
|
|
06/12/2008 11:19:21 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Well, your "Captain Planet" remark shows the seriousness with which you considered the alternative to profiteering from suffering. That's fine, I suppose. A better life is not always gained monetarily, however. |
Loius,
If I offended, I apologize. That isn't what I meant with the Captain Planet remark. That is just my generation. I was raised watching Captain Planet everyday after school.
When I think of environmentalists...I think of Captain Planet. I can't really help it. That is just my first thought on the subject. If you want a company to blame for that..I believe it was TBS that played it after school.
It is also very hard to take most 'environmentalists' seriously. For me anyways.
:)
Message edited by author 2008-06-12 23:22:58. |
|
|
|
06/12/2008 11:53:54 PM · #63 |
I wasn't offended, just remarked on what I thought I thought .... or something. Anyway I didn't know Captain Planet was a thing. Just goes to show how old I really am. :-( Well, here's some nostalgia for you (I love Google):
 |
|
|
|
06/13/2008 12:25:36 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I wasn't offended, just remarked on what I thought I thought .... or something. Anyway I didn't know Captain Planet was a thing. Just goes to show how old I really am. :-( Well, here's some nostalgia for you (I love Google):
|
It does bring back memories. This is a show that I really liked...They would fight 'evil companies' and to stop captain planet..the bad guys would cover him in oil, sludge..etc.....and the only way to 'save' him would be to clean him up..then he could save the day.
"By YOUR powers combined, I am Captain Planet!"
Message edited by author 2008-06-13 00:32:19. |
|
|
|
06/13/2008 03:11:14 PM · #65 |
Today I opened a sharebuilder account. I found a deal where I get 90$ free for signing up and trading once for $9.99. I figured "what the heck?". Although the reality seems to be that the more specific (less diverse) your portfolio is, the more it resembles "gambling" .. one could argue that the market is gambling since there are no guarantees.
Anyway, this will allow me to not be limited in where I put my money and I can contribute to businesses that seem to have a conscience. I understand where the opponents are coming from, but I can't help but think I'm onto something. If anything, the status quo seems to be shifting in the direction of socially conscious and environmentally conscious companies. So if anything, maybe I'll ride a trend. |
|
|
|
06/13/2008 05:00:56 PM · #66 |
I do think the "I keep my morals and finances separate" argument fails in the end. If we were having this conversation 150 years ago would the analogous argument be, "Listen, the only way to keep the plantation profitable is with black slaves from Africa. I don't worry about the morality of slavery because this is merely a financial transaction and I need to have a large nest egg to live comfortably when I retire."
Capitalism, unfortunately, is like an old building that looks great on the surface, but when you pull up a few floorboards you see a ton of stuff that makes you wish you had never looked.
That being said, while I suffer through the moral guilt, I do invest. I mainly do index funds, but the single stock I currently own is RIG which is a deep-sea oil driller. I don't know what to recommend. Learning to be happy with fewer material goods is probably the best start.
Message edited by author 2008-06-13 17:01:56. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/19/2025 10:08:05 AM EDT.
