I've been thinking about this for weeks now. I want your opinion on it. You know how the majority of all investors just want to make some money, a profit but don't care whether its off a company that makes unhealthy food for the masses and knows it, or an organic company that naturally nourishes us. I think that is wrong. But money managers don't care. Half of them give to charities but at the same time pitch Halliburton or w.e. I think the ethics have gotten way out of hand. And Warren Buffet isn't such an angel either for investing in Pepsi, which is noxious. I think we need to re-examine what is true investing, we are giving companies our money to create good products. We get returns yes, just like a bond, except we have more of a voice. The point is, how would the world change with the inclusion of ethics in investing? For one, Phillip Morris would be on Pink Sheets.

Investing is naturally unethical. Is it ethical to deny most of humanity from any ownership in business? The market is very anti-democratical. It is too profit driven. It's not like democracy, where ever person get one vote. In the market, if you have no money you get no votes. The rich are the only one who have a say. And they also control the government, unfortunately. Maybe they do because the government depends on them so much to get funding, but let's not forget that most people in the government are (or were once) rich business owners.

The rich does no concern themselves with ethical matters...

Investing is naturally unethical. Is it ethical to deny most of humanity from any ownership in business? The market is very anti-democratical. It is too profit driven. It's not like democracy, where ever person get one vote. In the market, if you have no money you get no votes. The rich are the only one who have a say. And they also control the government, unfortunately. Maybe they do because the government depends on them so much to get funding, but let's not forget that most people in the government are (or were once) rich business owners.

The rich does no concern themselves with ethical matters...

Answer my question. I think it is possible if enough people put there heads to it!

I've been thinking about this for weeks now. I want your opinion on it. You know how the majority of all investors just want to make some money, a profit but don't care whether its off a company that makes unhealthy food for the masses and knows it, or an organic company that naturally nourishes us. I think that is wrong. But money managers don't care. Half of them give to charities but at the same time pitch Halliburton or w.e. I think the ethics have gotten way out of hand. And Warren Buffet isn't such an angel either for investing in Pepsi, which is noxious. I think we need to re-examine what is true investing, we are giving companies our money to create good products. We get returns yes, just like a bond, except we have more of a voice. The point is, how would the world change with the inclusion of ethics in investing? For one, Phillip Morris would be on Pink Sheets.

government is the key, it needs to regulate funds to "good" companies...cut the tax for car companies that make hybrids for example. In turn the companies will be told to make investments more appealing...by increasing annual yield, or giving some membership benefits of the company's products.

As for ur example of pepsi...i love it, so i do hope it still stays. Diet Pepsi is my babe, i love her.:p

Investing is naturally unethical. Is it ethical to deny most of humanity from any ownership in business? The market is very anti-democratical. It is too profit driven. It's not like democracy, where ever person get one vote. In the market, if you have no money you get no votes. The rich are the only one who have a say. And they also control the government, unfortunately. Maybe they do because the government depends on them so much to get funding, but let's not forget that most people in the government are (or were once) rich business owners. The rich does no concern themselves with ethical matters...Actually a huge chunk of the stock market is owned by pension funds and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), so the average mom and pop are in fact represented in the ownership of capital. Realization is slowly dawning on mom and pop of the power this represents. People are being elected to the boards of pension funds who are directing their investments toward equities of companies that are "green," employ more women or minorities, don't trade with "evil" nations, don't sell "immoral" products, etc.

The stock market may be dominated by the rich because the rich have more money to buy stock with. But ordinary working people are by no means powerless and they have begun exercising their power. Many average citizens own shares in mutual funds which in turn own stock. There are mutual funds that target the market of "ethical" investors by only investing in the equities of "ethical" companies.

There are also many charitable foundations with huge endowments and trust funds to invest, and they tend to be guided by people of reasonably good conscience.

If you have a job you have a pension fund, or a 401(k) or SEP or some other type of IRA. Become more active and do your best to steer your own investments in the right direction. If you aren't putting something away for retirement then you need to concentrate your worries on that.

BTW, what you call "investing" is simply the private ownership of capital--the surplus generated by the efficient economy of a whole civilization. The world experimented with doing it the other way for about three quarters of a century and it was a dismal failure. It was called "communism." So far, private ownership and control of capital, for all its faults, is the only workable system we've come up with for running the economy of any community larger than a village. And back when the world was nothing but villages its economy didn't generate enough of a surplus to worry about.

Any investment in the stock market is unethical since these investments stimulate immoral behaviour on behalf of the companies. That is make more profit and sacrifice all to obtain this goal

I've been thinking about this for weeks now. I want your opinion on it. You know how the majority of all investors just want to make some money, a profit but don't care whether its off a company that makes unhealthy food for the masses and knows it, or an organic company that naturally nourishes us. I think that is wrong. But money managers don't care. Half of them give to charities but at the same time pitch Halliburton or w.e. I think the ethics have gotten way out of hand. And Warren Buffet isn't such an angel either for investing in Pepsi, which is noxious. I think we need to re-examine what is true investing, we are giving companies our money to create good products. We get returns yes, just like a bond, except we have more of a voice. The point is, how would the world change with the inclusion of ethics in investing? For one, Phillip Morris would be on Pink Sheets.


Ethical investing? You mean green investments?

In general, you should invest in whatever makes the most money regardless of if it's ethical or not, because money is personal security, and the more money you have the better. At the same time, if you have plenty of money, then yes you can choose to be a green invester and invest in earth friendly and humanist corporations.

I think, however, that consumers have little to no power in this, as a consumers main goal is to retain property, in specific fiscal property, money. Make as much as you can.

Be that as it may, my question remains unanswered. How would the world change with the inclusion of ethics in investing?

It appears that you want the real answer. I know the answer to this ethical question.

It couldn't, it wouldn't and it shouldn't.

First of all there is no universal morality, thus what is moral/ethical to you, maybe immoral to me. Second, morality is not the object of investment but capital preservation and profitmaking is.

In one word, investing and morality are mutually exclusive...

We have to consider the possibility that the rich are one of the most ethical people in the world. If ethics is useful in the pursuit of excellence, and the rich are excellent in their endeavours, and have grown in their personal greatness, are the great producers and supporters of all society...however are they unethical to begin with?

Any investment in the stock market is unethical since these investments stimulate immoral behaviour on behalf of the companies. That is make more profit and sacrifice all to obtain this goalSo it sounds like what you want is actually more ethical customers rather than more ethical stockholders. If a sizeable number of people only buy the products and services of ethically run businesses, then those businesses will prosper at the expense of the others.

BTW, I think that what you folks want will happen anyway. The corporation is an artifact of the Industrial Era. Large concentrations of capital were needed to build railroads, steel mills, auto factories, etc.

The Information Age distributes business back out to the individual. CAM allows entrepreneurs to "manufacture" very small runs of customized products, as small as one unit. The web allows one customer to find the one business that can build his product, and UPS and FedEx allow the business to ship it to him. Large concentrations of capital are not needed to start up and run these types of businesses. And as customization becomes more common, more necessary, and more expected, there won't be much pressure on businesses to expand beyond a modest level at which they can continue to function efficiently without outside capital.

The growing number of businesses that deal strictly with the essence of the Information Age--information--operate even more economically and with even more customization. Children start these businesses with a cash advance on their mommy's ATM card and run them at night while they go to school in the daytime. And there is even less pressure to expand and even less pressure to concentrate capital.

Just as we still needed farmers when we built cities, and just as we still needed craftsmen when we built industry, we will surely still need some industrial-scale businesses in the Information Age. But they will not be able to dominate our economy or our morality.

Every Era has its villains. I think it's time we stopped fussing over the evil done by corporations in their twilight century, and try to figure out who the next villains will be before they take over our governments.

It appears that you want the real answer. I know the answer to this ethical question.

Tell us.

government needs to regulate funds to "good" companies...cut the tax for car companies that make hybrids for example. In turn the companies will be told to make investments more appealing...by increasing annual yield, or giving some membership benefits of the company's products.

Every Era has its villains. I think it's time we stopped fussing over the evil done by corporations in their twilight century, and try to figure out who the next villains will be before they take over our governments.

I think that the population at large isn't financially educated to the extent where they can differentiate between good/bad companies. The economy reflects the people. But I think someone needs to popup with a firey fury and revolutionize the ethical aspect of the economy. Good for the F.A.S.B there needs to be a F.Ethics.S.B What is moral you ask? I defined it clearly in Lix's thread. "What's moral you might ask? I'm not going to talk about religion because I don't believe in it! I'm talking about logic. If you create the internet you know it will create communication and transfer of knowledge. When you create a gun you know it will create death. Death isn't good it isn't a happy experience. You don't need GOD to know that." But then we can go off to the topic of how cops need guns to stave off the criminals, but that's a temporary solution to an age old problem, and the prisons are swelling. We must target the root of the problem. The poverty, the education. Investing in schools, privitising schools. What do you guys think of privisting schools? The gov't isn't doing a good job anyway. Public schools.

Quickfixes are ineffective. Privatizing schools are even less effective. Privatizing has been proven everywhere to change everything from hell on earth to hell on keller. Anything that gets privatized has one concern. Profit. I can soooooooo easily go to any job, and fake it till I make it. Meaning I can prettend to work, and fulfill whatever bs quota to minimum standards, and nobody can do anything about it. Privatizing has time and again been proven to be a deaf, blind, and dunce solution.


It couldn't, it wouldn't and it shouldn't.

First of all there is no universal morality, thus what is moral/ethical to you, maybe immoral to me. Second, morality is not the object of investment but capital preservation and profitmaking is.

In one word, investing and morality are mutually exclusive...
Wrong.

Tell us.

Tell me.

Wrong.

No, it is right... [And the level of discussion finally reached the sky....]

Tell us.
DEFINING A BUSINESS
Every profit entity (business) is defined by the source of revenue.
Whatever you call your business or whatever you call your profession doesn’t matter.
What are your sources of revenue?
When money comes into your pocket, where is it coming from?
Does it come from selling land?

Buying and selling land is not your business. Your business is the sale of land.
Does it come from charging your workers for their uniforms?

That counts as a source of revenue. Even if you bought the uniforms for the exact amount of money you charged your workers.
This particular situation is sees no profit, but it is a revenue.

The first step is to define every source of revenue.


ETHICS
1.
There is no such thing as ethics in terms of any business entities.
Ethics are NEVER assumed.
Ethics (Standards and conduct) have to be specifically defined.
All standards have to be set by you.


2. Ethics have nothing to do with profitability. They are a list of standards you set forth to abide by whether profitable or not.
Is it true that ethics are “always” good for business? FALSE
(Remember what you are taught about T/F tests to be aware of always statements.)
The standards you set have nothing to do with being good for business.
Depending on the situation, a particular standard may be profitable or it may not be profitable.
Risk management is the only way to determine profitability. Ethics have nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Your standards of ethics and conduct are solely based on what you believe is right and wrong.
If you define "practical" as anything that is profitable, your standards may well not be practical.
They are however yours to abide by and live up to by nothing more than personal choice. (free will)


3.
The standards you present to the public do not have to be the standards you have set for your business.
There are but few businesses that abides by the standards they publish to the public.
-You can publish in your standards that you will never kill anybody.
-Meanwhile, there is no standard against killing in your real standards.

This does not just go for standards, this goes for any aspect of your business.
All businesses have 2 sets of descriptions.
-The real description.
-The description presented to the public.


ALL YOU ARE DOING HERE IS NOT ASKING HOW THE WORLD WOULD CHANGE WITH ETHICAL INVESTING
There is no such thing as this other than what you personally choose to invest in.
The real question you are asking is:
“How can I invest ethically according to my ethical standards in relation to other people who invest whatever they want? This is not fair, so we should change the system to make it fair so that everybody has to invest according to predefined objective ethical standards.”

This is 100% correct. It is not fair, and the system should be changed.

However, regarding your question, there are 2 correct answers regarding how to invest ethically in a market full of idiots.
1. You cannot .
2. You can.

1. You cannot compete because they have the advantage to you as an individual investing ethically. They have more options, and they have more potential for profit with less risk of loss.

2. You can as long as you understand the truth. This is not a competition. You can easily invest ethically, and make tons of money doing so. You just have to ask yourself.
-Is this investment profitable?
-Does this company abide by my standards?
-Are they a scam? (Be VERY weary. Many ethical businesses are TOTAL scams.)


-CS

Thank you. I will pursue this track. I will learn more about what is best for the the world and will invest accordingly. I'm still young and have time to learn. Thanks for the explanation.


-CS

Your initials?

Yes that is my real name.

Yes that is my real name.

I private messaged you.

Going to sleep though.

MONEY FLOWING ASSETS
When I use the term "Invest", I use it to mean:
Buying things that will make money.
Sometimes I don't tend to use the term "invest". Sometimes, I like to say the whole thing out for what it really is. I am going to buy something that will make me money.

Corporate stocks are one form that can be used as a MFA.
There are other forms of what I call Money Flowing Assets. (MFAs)
There are assets that you can own like your car or house. But they are not MFAs because they are not sources of regular revenue.
They can be sold for revenue, but MFAs are any source of revenue that regularly puts money in your pockets.
You need not do anything other than open your hands so the money can pour right in.
Interest, stocks, commodities, real estate, intellectual property, and others can do this.
Intellectual Property is a good one.
A famous example always used is the song happy birthday. Anytime that song is used in a movie or published somewhere, the owner of the copyright gets a check.


4 DIMENSIONAL BUDGETING
The budgeting of MFA’s are what I call 4 Dimensional Budgeting.
While a 3 dimensional budget allows you to keep record of your money.
A 4 dimensional budget allows you to keep record of your flowing money. (MFAs)
Amassing money is does nothing and means nothing.
Amassing MFAs does everything and means everything.
When thinking about wealth, the mind should NEVER be focused on making money (amassing money).
The mind should ALWAYS be focused on amassing MFAs.
MFAs are like balls sitting on top of your head pouring money all over you all day.
Amassing such balls are far better than amassing such money.

MFAs are just one of 2 types of assets.
The other type is just paperweight.
Do not put any faith in assets that do not flow like cars, crap, and a house that you live in.
They are nothing like MFAs


FUNDING FOR PERSONAL CARE
Personal care is a liability (something that takes money out of your pockets).
-Use a very small amount of funding for personal care and development.
-Use everything else you have to amass MFAs.

10% of a typical income could probably be enough for the first part.
That means 90% can be used for MFAs.
(Usually people have it the other way around using 10% for MFAs.)

Witness my personal example:
********************************
Eat well.
Take care of my body.
Stay clean, fresh, and take care of my skin.
Dance and perform often at local shows.
Write often.
Go out with beautiful girls.
Keep my car, apartment, computer, clothes, and belongings in good condition.
(All of this is easy to accomplish with very small funding.) $500 per month. $1000 tops.

Other than that, I have an aversion to everything rich people like. Fancy cars. Big house. Jewelry. Brand name clothes. I am very clean, well taken care of, active, healthy, dress very well, keep a Cool balance in my day, and have a great deal of high aptitude abilities (Skill). My wardrobe is well organized and fresh, and looking great despite being all generic. This means I need not go into convulsions over spilling some ketchup on my clothes as they did not cost me an arm an a leg.

The things that attract many people do nothing for me. I am just not interested in anything other than performing, having fun learning, personal care, and my loved ones. I have the drive and capacity to make a fortune for the sake of making the difference on earth. Such a difference that many rich people have the capability to do, but are not in anyway as dedicated to.

I have no problem taking care of body and myself in general. I can probably be considered better at this than many rich people with a great amount of money and lots of amenities. They have so much access to everything they need for personal care and development, but they simply are drones within the rat race. They have a great ability to make lots of money, but low ability to take care of themselves.

They believe that all these material things will be useful, but material things need lots of attention in order to be taken care of. Money out of their crooked pockets to buy these things, and even more money out of their crooked pockets to manage and care for these things. Things take up space, and things need to be maintained. That is why I cannot stand them, and am unaware why people are so devoted to them. I abide by my own definition of minimalism, which is that more stuff creates more psychosis. Less stuff creates more clarity, takes up much less space and effort to maintain, and makes life way easier. This is the opposite of the standard view which is that more stuff makes life easier. More stuff to me is more of a chore. The less money I spend on garbo, the more MFAs I can get my hands on. The point is to limit/reduce funding for personal care/development, and increase funding for MFAs. If I take in $5000 in a month, and only need $500 to live very well, I have $4500 for MFAs.

The more wealth I accumulate, the better I am able to implement many of my designs in caring for and educating the poor. My objective is light. You cannot take on darkness blindly because it is a futile fight. You can shed light, and witness the darkness disappear that fast.

My great drive for making money and being rich has nothing to do with anything other than helping others who are suffering in really bad situations through no fault of their own.
-CS
********************************
Simply consider how much it really costs you to have a place to sleep and spoils to keep yourself clean, fed, clothed, and healthy. Perhaps a computer to administer your MFAs and transportation to get around. What else? What is the point of anything else? If you can handle this (it’s not rocket science), you have all life figured out. Because, ultimately, this is all you are obligated to do in life. Take care of your mind and body. You can have all the money on the planet, and you will never escape needing your mind and body to be taken care of. This is the only obligation you will never be free from. Understand it, and understand how to fund it.


-CS

Be that as it may, my question remains unanswered. How would the world change with the inclusion of ethics in investing?

It wouldn't change at all. Because unless the employees are ethical, it does not matter where you invest your money, and thats the point.

So instead of focusing on ethical investing, just invest, buy as much stock as you can afford to buy, and buy from corporations guarenteed to profit. If you want, you can balance it out, you can invest in both the current and future, but

Some of the best companies to invest in, such as
the big oil companies, tabacco companies, gun companies and weapons companies, these are guarenteed profits, based on human nature as the trend setter. If you want to profit, bet on man destroying man.

You can also hedge your bets, by betting on green corporations, and eco-friendly corporations, because if man ever stops destorying man, or if we manage to pull away from the edge of the cliff and maintain a civilization, we will likely make the move to more efficiency, and in that environment you can imagine that eco-friendly green corporations and technologies would be the answer.

I'd suggest you bet on old money, because old money is guarenteed profit, and well networked. New money is usually more of a risk, less well networked, and subject to the risks of society. I'd say you cannot fail betting on weapons companies, and if you want to know exactly which companies, just check the search engine they have for government spending, you can see which corporations have staying power based on the level of spending.

I used to think ethical investing was a good idea. But the truth is, ethical investing accomplishes nothing, because profitable investing is all that matters, it's all about $, not ethics, and if you know that then you'll go grab the money.

Ethics are for personal relations, you can be an ethical person and still be a rich person, but in order to be a rich person, you have to be willing to fund or invest in any corporation which guarentees profit.

http://www.fedspending.org/

A short list of obviously good investments

1. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP
2. BOEING CO.
3. NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORP
4. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP
5. RAYTHEON CO.

Any of these above companies are good investments, if the federal government invests in a company you know it's a good investment. You won't lose your money, and you'll likely profit.

There are others that arent directly connected to the federal government that always profit, like tabacco, which to my knowledge is not directly involved with government contracts, but tabacco companies such as http://www.philipmorris.com make for a good portfolio, as part of your vice fund.

In fact, there is a vice fund site
http://www.vicefund.com/

When it comes to investing, play to win, invest with the intent of profiting, don't make an ethical investment that causes you to lose profit or waste money, as most ethical investments are a waste of money. If you know of ethical investments that can give profits right now, show me.

MONEY FLOWING ASSETS
There are other forms of what I call Money Flowing Assets. (MFAs)
There are assets that you can own like your car or house. But they are not sources of revenue.
They can be sold for revenue, but MFAs are any sources of revenue that regularly put money in your pockets.
You need not do anything other than open your hands so the money can pour right in.
Interest, stocks, commodities, real estate, intellectual property, and others can do this.
Intellectual Property is a good one.
A famous example always used is the song happy birthday. Anytime that song is used in a movie or published somewhere, the owner of the copyright gets a check.


4 DIMENSIONAL BUDGETING
The budgeting of MFA’s are what I call 4 Dimensional Budgeting.
While a 3 dimensional budget allows you to keep record of your money.
A 4 dimensional budget allows you to keep record of your flowing money. (MFAs)
Amassing money is does nothing and means nothing.
Amassing MFAs does everything and means everything.
When thinking about wealth, the mind should NEVER be focused on making money (amassing money).
The mind should ALWAYS be focused on amassing MFAs.
MFAs are like balls sitting on top of your head pouring money all over you all day.
Amassing such balls are far better than amassing such money.

MFAs are just one of 2 types of assets.
The other type is just paperweight.
Do not put any faith in assets that do not flow like cars, crap, and a house that you live in.
They are nothing like MFAs


FUNDING FOR PERSONAL CARE
Personal care is a liability (something that takes money out of your pockets).
-Use a very small amount of funding for personal care and development.
-Use everything else you have to amass MFAs.

10% of a typical income could probably be enough for the first part.
That means 90% can be used for MFAs.
(Usually people have it the other way around using 10% for MFAs.)

Witness my personal example:

Simply consider how much it really costs you to have a place to sleep and spoils to keep yourself clean, fed, clothed, and healthy. Perhaps a computer to administer your MFAs and transportation to get around. What else? What is the point of anything else? If you can handle this (it’s not rocket science), you have all life figured out. Because, ultimately, this is all you are obligated to do in life. Take care of your mind and body. You can have all the money on the planet, and you will never escape needing your mind and body to be taken care of. This is the only obligation you will never be free from. Understand it, and understand how to fund it.


-CS

You know nothing at all about money. Yes all that matters are these things, thats why you need money. Money is the KEY.

Actually a huge chunk of the stock market is owned by pension funds and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), so the average mom and pop are in fact represented in the ownership of capital. Realization is slowly dawning on mom and pop of the power this represents. People are being elected to the boards of pension funds who are directing their investments toward equities of companies that are "green," employ more women or minorities, don't trade with "evil" nations, don't sell "immoral" products, etc.

The stock market may be dominated by the rich because the rich have more money to buy stock with. But ordinary working people are by no means powerless and they have begun exercising their power. Many average citizens own shares in mutual funds which in turn own stock. There are mutual funds that target the market of "ethical" investors by only investing in the equities of "ethical" companies.

There are also many charitable foundations with huge endowments and trust funds to invest, and they tend to be guided by people of reasonably good conscience.

If you have a job you have a pension fund, or a 401(k) or SEP or some other type of IRA. Become more active and do your best to steer your own investments in the right direction. If you aren't putting something away for retirement then you need to concentrate your worries on that.

BTW, what you call "investing" is simply the private ownership of capital--the surplus generated by the efficient economy of a whole civilization. The world experimented with doing it the other way for about three quarters of a century and it was a dismal failure. It was called "communism." So far, private ownership and control of capital, for all its faults, is the only workable system we've come up with for running the economy of any community larger than a village. And back when the world was nothing but villages its economy didn't generate enough of a surplus to worry about.

You are correct, green companies are becoming more popular. I can see that trend, but I don't think the idea that green NEW companies would be a wise investment is worth much merit. I think most new green companies will struggle, unless they have a completely brilliant idea.

I think existing corporations can go more green, but I don't think that it's wise to force corporations to hire quotas of minorities and women, thats the wrong way to handle it. I think the better way to handle it, is to simply change the corporate culture, starting with a simple code of ethics and hiring practices, and promote unity. Of course you should hire women and minorities, but you cannot pin that on the green movement as if green exists to help women and minorities, it's about efficiency, it's about unity, unity is strength, efficiency makes the workload easier and most sustainable, it's efficient to hire women and minorities, and it's just a good business practice to not hire based on any of that, you should hire based on personality and mind, maybe based on record, and thats about it, all the other stuff that people hire on, like the interview process, this is a way of hiring your friends. So basically most corporations hire friends and family members, and these people cycle from corporation to corporation where they have friends at. I don't see this changing anytime soon.

You know nothing at all about money. Yes all that matters are these things, thats why you need money. Money is the KEY.
Again another obsessed post from you that means nothing.

Face it. You are a capitalist fanatic. Capitalism is a religion. It's even worse. People support and defend it with the blind faith of pure irrationality. Capitalism does not work. Stop making up excuses for it and trying to justify it. It's garbology. You know nothing about money or anything else for that matter. I have yet to witness you post a reasonable contribution for once in your lifetime.

If you know of ethical investments that can give profits right now, show me.

I posted an article that hints on that in a new thread "Organic".

I think that there is always something better than the current state we're in. Capitalism is not the best, it may be the best in history. Our environment is changing, there is more unity, the internet. We need to all be as one, and include ethics. We (the people) need to determine what is practically moral and state it. We need to cut the bullshit out of life, the want for women, cars, big houses, and toys that get boring after a day. Instead go after what matters, advancement (intellectually). I feel that everyone has the brainpower, it can be created, not with the current public education system. I have always thought it right to make teachers Internet guides Let the children learn from the internet, find what they like, do what they want to do. Have teachers (IG) grade them weekly about what info they gathered, and what relevance it has. Computer assisted learning. But let this be public, so parents can chart progress online. Unfortunetly all parents care about now is grades.

Money is paper that is key.

I can see that trend, but I don't think the idea that green NEW companies would be a wise investment is worth much merit. I think most new green companies will struggle, unless they have a completely brilliant idea.As I opined earlier, I think this century is going to see the demise of the corporation as a major issue. So in the cosmic run it doesn't matter how brand-new corporations fare. The successful new businesses will be the ones built on the micro model, which will use the old fashioned methods of individual entrepreneurship augmented by partnership and/or secured lending rather than incorporation.I think existing corporations can go more green, but I don't think that it's wise to force corporations to hire quotas of minorities and women, thats the wrong way to handle it. I think the better way to handle it, is to simply change the corporate culture, starting with a simple code of ethics and hiring practices, and promote unity.You change corporate culture the same way you tame a wild animal: with food. Withhold your money until it does what you want and it will do what you want. all the other stuff that people hire on, like the interview process, this is a way of hiring your friends.Most corporate positions are not filled by friends except at the very top. Having a friend in a company who can put your resume on a manager's desk may help you get an interview but it will never get you the job. For an executive to hire a friend just because she's a friend is as dangerous to the success of the business as hiring someone just because of their gender, ethnicity, religion, etc. A company that runs that way will not prosper in the long run. I don't know how many years you've spent in management, but in my experience interviews are extremely important and effective.

Investing is naturally unethical. Is it ethical to deny most of humanity from any ownership in business? The market is very anti-democratical. It is too profit driven. It's not like democracy, where ever person get one vote. In the market, if you have no money you get no votes. The rich are the only one who have a say. And they also control the government, unfortunately. Maybe they do because the government depends on them so much to get funding, but let's not forget that most people in the government are (or were once) rich business owners.

The rich does no concern themselves with ethical matters...

Yeah, you are rich compared to families in Africa, I guess that makes you unethical.

Again another obsessed post from you that means nothing.

Face it. You are a capitalist fanatic. Capitalism is a religion. It's even worse. People support and defend it with the blind faith of pure irrationality. Capitalism does not work. Stop making up excuses for it and trying to justify it. It's garbology. You know nothing about money or anything else for that matter. I have yet to witness you post a reasonable contribution for once in your lifetime.

I'm not a capitalist fanatic, but it's all we have to keep us from slaughtering ourselves out of existance. Money is the only security we have!

What keeps you warm at night? What keeps food in your stomach and water in your cup? What pays your bills? What protects you? It's your MONEY.

$ = security, and so it's important. It's not that I'm a capitalist fanatic, or religiously capitalist, or even greedy, I'm not even rich, but because I'm not rich and I know how bad it is to be in povery, yes damn right I value money. $ is the difference between life and death for many people, it's the difference between your children being educated in college or in prison in some cases, it's the difference between a long life and a short life, as health is also connected to income. So yes, I do value $, this does not mean I like how the system currently operates, I'm simply saying that we must ALWAYS have a system in place to keep people from becoming violent and looting and slaughtering like people did in the stone ages, back when if someone wanted what you had, they'd just take it from you. There is money even in prison, without money people would be fighting over everything, you'd have to physically fight for food, water, shelter, clothes, everything you have now because of money you'd have to physically take, and I don't think you are a big enough person or a good enough fighter to take everything all the time physically. This is why money exists, it allows us all to be givers and takers, in the safety of our offices.

Most corporate positions are not filled by friends except at the very top. Having a friend in a company who can put your resume on a manager's desk may help you get an interview but it will never get you the job. For an executive to hire a friend just because she's a friend is as dangerous to the success of the business as hiring someone just because of their gender, ethnicity, religion, etc. A company that runs that way will not prosper in the long run. I don't know how many years you've spent in management, but in my experience interviews are extremely important and effective.

Ultimately, people hire whoever they can trust. You can trust your friends, you can trust your family, the more important the job is, the more critical the position is, the less likely you'll be to hire an outsider, thats just how things are. Loyalty is so important in corporate culture that it does make sense to hire your friends and family members. It's easier to hire people you know, than to pay to do backround checks on people and conduct all sorts of personality tests on people you don't know. So hiring friends is a lot quicker to process also.

"simply saying that we must ALWAYS have a system in place to keep people from becoming violent and looting and slaughtering like people did in the stone ages"
This has nothing to do with capitalism.
Over and over again your logic. What is it with you?
A better system than capitalism is installed. Therefore, nothing is stopping people from becoming "violent and looting and slaughtering like people did in the stone ages"

How is this not a contradiction?
Installing a system that will more effectively prevent people from becoming "violent and looting and slaughtering like people did in the stone ages" = more people becoming "violent and looting and slaughtering like people did in the stone ages"




Money is not secure in anyway. History makes that very clear. Especially when you have a few thousands of dollars one day. And the next day, you are using it as firewood because it costs less than fire wood. This goes the same for electronic money that we all know better than anybody can be deleted at any time. It has little security.

Furthermore, why are do you keep arguing about money? Money has nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism.


The corporation is a problem, but ultimately the corporation is the result of capitalism.
To say that the current system is not working because of the corporation is not adressing the system itself. What exactly is the system that is not working? The corporation is not the system. The corporation is an aspect of the system created by the system.

First of all, define what is not working.
Simple. The system as it currently is is not working. No need to give specifics on reasons why. The fact of the matter is the system itself is flawed, penetrable, dysfunctional, and unstable from the ground up. That is the result of nonsense economic systems such as crappytalism.

I've been thinking about this for weeks now. I want your opinion on it. You know how the majority of all investors just want to make some money, a profit but don't care whether its off a company that makes unhealthy food for the masses and knows it, or an organic company that naturally nourishes us. I think that is wrong. But money managers don't care. Half of them give to charities but at the same time pitch Halliburton or w.e. I think the ethics have gotten way out of hand. And Warren Buffet isn't such an angel either for investing in Pepsi, which is noxious. I think we need to re-examine what is true investing, we are giving companies our money to create good products. We get returns yes, just like a bond, except we have more of a voice. The point is, how would the world change with the inclusion of ethics in investing? For one, Phillip Morris would be on Pink Sheets.

Then put your money where your mouth is. Start buying ethically ok stuff.

Be that as it may, my question remains unanswered. How would the world change with the inclusion of ethics in investing?

Better information for consumers. If consumers know what businesses are up to, they may be more willing to take their money elsewhere.

A company is only as important as people make it to be. Where do you think the money for an evil company comes from? The Illuminati? Ha. It comes from you, you consumer whore.

Yeah, you are rich compared to families in Africa, I guess that makes you unethical.
Wealth does not necessarily translate into unethical behaviour.

Btw, my standard of living is not that much higher compared to families Africa, when you consider the big picture. Fuck, I have a potential marginal propensity to save of 5%! :bugeye:

FUNDING FOR PERSONAL CARE
Personal care is a liability (something that takes money out of your pockets).
-Use a very small amount of funding for personal care and development.
-Use everything else you have to amass MFAs.

10% of a typical income could probably be enough for the first part.
That means 90% can be used for MFAs.
(Usually people have it the other way around using 10% for MFAs.)

Witness my personal example:

Simply consider how much it really costs you to have a place to sleep and spoils to keep yourself clean, fed, clothed, and healthy. Perhaps a computer to administer your MFAs and transportation to get around. What else? What is the point of anything else? If you can handle this (it’s not rocket science), you have all life figured out. Because, ultimately, this is all you are obligated to do in life. Take care of your mind and body. You can have all the money on the planet, and you will never escape needing your mind and body to be taken care of. This is the only obligation you will never be free from. Understand it, and understand how to fund it.
OMG You know nothing about money!!!! :eek:

So you are saying that a person in Africa in the middle of the desert could have a marginal propensity to save of 90%? :rolleyes:

Oh, you don't mean Africa, you mean a poor person in America? Still- wrong!!!

You can only have a marginal propensity to save of 90% if it only takes 10% of your disposable income to fund your bare necessities. In other words, you have to be at least middle middle class (possibly upper middle class, or even upper class due to taxation and debt issues such as house and car).

Therefore, nothing is stopping people from becoming "violent and looting and slaughtering like people did in the stone ages"

How is this not a contradiction?
Installing a system that will more effectively prevent people from becoming "violent and looting and slaughtering like people did in the stone ages" = more people becoming "violent and looting and slaughtering like people did in the stone ages"




Money is not secure in anyway. History makes that very clear. Especially when you have a few thousands of dollars one day. And the next day, you are using it as firewood because it costs less than fire wood. This goes the same for electronic money that we all know better than anybody can be deleted at any time. It has little security.

Furthermore, why are do you keep arguing about money? Money has nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism.


I argue for money because I'm pro money. I never said I was pro capitalism in specific, but we have capitalism so lets work with what we have.


The corporation is a problem, but ultimately the corporation is the result of capitalism.

Nothing is wrong with the idea of a corporation except the fact that corporations are persons, but unlike ordinary persons, corporations NEVER die, they live forever, and can hold patents forever, and grow in unlimited size, so yes our system has problems, corporations are not perfected, and we aren't doing much to improve or make them more efficient.

To say that the current system is not working because of the corporation is not adressing the system itself. What exactly is the system that is not working? The corporation is not the system. The corporation is an aspect of the system created by the system.


Each corporation is a collective person. However there are no laws or rules, or nature laws of any sort. There is no corporate death for example, corporations can't die. Also, all corporations are forced to be run in a machine like format, with little to no freedom, meaning it's the law to run your corporation as a sociopath. The corporation cannot therefore be run for the sake or interest of the common good.

First of all, define what is not working.
Simple. The system as it currently is is not working. No need to give specifics on reasons why. The fact of the matter is the system itself is flawed, penetrable, dysfunctional, and unstable from the ground up. That is the result of nonsense economic systems such as crappytalism.

So how would you redesign capitalism to make it work better? I think the start would be to slowly bring capitalism back down to earth, slowly. Green capitalism, is trying to do that, by making capitalism earth friendly, so that corporations don't destroy the earth itself. From here you can have eco-capitalism, so capitalism can actually benefit the eco-system. At some point capitalism may even benefit people again, but this is not going to happen if you just complain about the system and do nothing to make it more efficient.

We all know it's inefficient, it's all we have to work with. There is carbon trading now. That's efficient. It reduces pollution, but let me guess, you seem to think capitalism can only do evil, thats your problem. You need to understand that capitalism can do good, it can clean the environment just as easily as it can destroy it.

Nothing is wrong with capitalism, capitalism can be made more efficient.

Learn more, and figure out what new systems need to be invented to make capitalism more efficient, in fact I challenge you to think of some new ideas to make it more efficient, otherwise you are an anarchist.

Nothing is wrong with capitalism, capitalism can be made more efficient.

Efficient as in more profit?

Somedays ago the news said that some Swedish and Norweigen pension fonds have sold of all there Walmart shares because they found walmart treated there employees badly.

Somedays ago the news said that some Swedish and Norweigen pension fonds have sold of all there Walmart shares because they found walmart treated there employees badly.

those Swedish and Norweigeans sure do got high self esteem. Next thing you know...someone will pick the bugger in their nose and wipe it off a Swedish/Norweigen supermodel picture on a magazine, and theyll react by starting a war with the guy's country.

Time traveler, you keep talking about Green. I'm not talking about ecology here. The global warming we are experiencing is cyclical, only a fraction of it stems from our polluting. I'm talking about the psyche aspect of it. I think Adam Smith was right, absolutely! But he envisioned something else. Smith was a prolific reader of ethics, I can't emphasise that enough! I don't think he would be happy with what he sees now. I'm at school, I will expatiate on this at home. Read Adam Smith's American Dream: Of Desire and Debt By Peter C. Whybrow. Debt is a big issue now and all because of materialism perpetuated by lotteries, media and the like / and not giving caring about the next guy. "In Adam Smith's analysis, the instinctual strivings of self-interest, curiousity, and social ambition expressed in a love of market competition and material gain are the keys to social improvement". I think people in our days are taking that too seriously. But then Smith also said "the dynamic balance between healthy ambition and individual desire and an individual's EMPATHIC, observing conscience-what Smith referred to as the "impartial spectator"-that provided the prescription for positive social change in a free-market economy, ensuring a stable civil order an equitable disrtribution of wealth. Smith thought that greed and similarly undesireable behaviors would be held in check by the powerful human need for peer recognition and neighborly social acceptance. That is incorrect in my book. One should realize for himself that he will do it for the BETTERMENT OF HUMAN KIND. Giving money to the poor should not be because of social acceptance but because you think that they will do something with it open their minds and make our lives better. There will be less war, less greed, more understanding. That is what I'm getting at. NOT ECOLOGY! or GREEN COMPANIES. I want ETHICAL COMPANIES!

I want ETHICAL COMPANIES!

Do they exist?

Businesswiz,

Unfortunately, it is not as easy as giving money to the poor. That is pointless if poor people don't know how to use it in a way that will benefit them in the long-run. And then there is the issue of giving enough to survive as well...

Businesswiz,

Unfortunately, it is not as easy as giving money to the poor. That is pointless if poor people don't know how to use it in a way that will benefit them in the long-run. And then there is the issue of giving enough to survive as well...

That I understand, and I actually commented on that issue before, on this forum. I absolutely support the above statement. I used it as a current events parallel, since everyone wants to donate and give to tax shelters or w.e. they call them. (Charities).



I thought I'd include this comment I made on another thread (What Is Your Purpose in Life?
- TruthSeeker, in Free Thoughts ). These are my beliefs:
Glad you asked! I want to test my existance, I want to take my body, my mind, to the LIMIT! I'm doing a scientific test on myself if you'd like to call it that. I don't know why we're here. I don't think we have a reason, its beyond my understanding. I haven't come to that understanding yet. Maybe we will find out our origins in time. For now I'm enjoying my time on earth with this survival machine, the human body. The brain of which is the most important tool. I want to push it to the limit. I have to do that before I make any decisions like, "eliminate global poverty". I breathe because I know there is no heaven. I believe in energy. We die, get buried and are turned into trees and cows and more humans. I want to enjoy my time and use my energy wisely. And hope everyone else does, lets make something phenominal happen while we are still alive, and push ourselves to the limit!

I believe that the purpose of humans has always been to survive by any means. Now we are at a point where we have superflous resources. I mean we're cloning steaks, we now have the ability to grow steaks! I think our goal should be knowledge creation. Knowledge uprising. Telling the truth, not being greedy. Faith is important. NOT RELIGION. But humanistic faith, scientific faith. Faith in discoveries and Enlightenment 2.0 Because we are living in ethical dark ages.

I want to push myself to the limit too... That's why I chose such a challenging goal...

I want to push myself to the limit too... That's why I chose such a challenging goal...

:) Go for it. But take breaks or you'll wear yourself out, I did that, but I learned from it. Its like calculus, approach the limit as closely as you can, but don't push it too far.

Ethical companies. Do they exist?Check out Warren Buffett's stable, the subsidiaries of the Berkshire-Hathaway group. Buffett is famous for not being greedy or egotistical and he plans not to leave the bulk of his holdings to his children. In fact he's putting it all into the non-profit trust set up by Bill Gates, something that was commonly done by business leaders a century ago. I have no respect for Microsoft as a company or for Gates as an IT manager because like most Americans he can't even spell "QA," but I don't have any problem with the ethics of either of those moguls and the companies they run.

Check out Warren Buffett's stable, the subsidiaries of the Berkshire-Hathaway group. Buffett is famous for not being greedy or egotistical and he plans not to leave the bulk of his holdings to his children. In fact he's putting it all into the non-profit trust set up by Bill Gates, something that was commonly done by business leaders a century ago. I have no respect for Microsoft as a company or for Gates as an IT manager because like most Americans he can't even spell "QA," but I don't have any problem with the ethics of either of those moguls and the companies they run.

Yea, recently watched the PBS thing with them both on talking to college students. WB is giving like 90% of his wealth to charity.

Ethical Investment and compound interest cannot coexist. Monetary system is inherently unstable and not just, it allows small % to become bludsucking leeches. People should understand that (1+r)^m doesn't converge when m is going to infinity :) That means that claim that money is an equivalent of energy is absolutely false, since money defy the First law of thermodynamics (and second law too, btw). (1+r)^m is a formula of monetary perpetuum mobile. Sure, only plutocracy can own it, since one need certain critical mass of the dough to get perpetuum mobile going. Plutocracy will do any savagery against nature and humanity to limit the access to the machine. Nation consisting of rentiers is NONSENSE, why people can't get it?

Ethical Investment and compound interest cannot coexist. Monetary system is inherently unstable and not just, it allows small % to become bludsucking leeches. People should understand that (1+r)^m doesn't converge when m is going to infinity :) That means that claim that money is equivalent of energy is absolutely false, since money defy the First law of thermodynamics (and second law too, btw). (1+r)^m is a formula of monetary perpetuum mobile. Sure, only plutocracy can own it, since one need certain critical mass of the dough to get perpetuum mobile going. Plutocracy will do any savagery against nature and humanity to limit the access to the machine. Nation consisting of rentiers is NONSENSE, why people can't get it?

The only thing I understand from what you just said is the formula. That's the Future Value equation of interest rates (compounding). Please clear up what you're trying to say. Use simple English.

Money supply shall go to infinity with time to keep compound interest economy going. If you put 1 gallon in your car, you'll drive X miles and stop. First and Second Laws demand it to stop. If you have a cool mil to spare, you can invest it and expect it to grow theoretically to infinity with time. that's equivalent of perpetuum mobile. If only our cars could run like that. Even universe has finite energy, while human money supply seems to be boundless. Therefore, money is not equivalent of energy as some people claim.

The second question is how compound interest economy works? Since priviledged caste of investors has a luxury of driving monetary "perpetuum mobile", and since replicator is not invented yet, i.e. nothing appears without human labor. My conclusion is that labor of many by means of various mechanisms is being transformed into compound interests of the few. How long this kind of economy can go on without a megacrisis is an interesting question.

The second question is how compound interest economy works? Since priviledged caste of investors has a luxury of driving monetary "perpetuum mobile", and since replicator is not invented yet, i.e. nothing appears without human labor. My conclusion is that labor of many by means of various mechanisms is being transformed into compound interests of the few. How long this kind of economy can go on without a megacrisis is an interesting question.


This is interesting. Explain what you mean by interest? Putting money in a bank? A bond? Preferred stock? Notes Payable? Be more specific.

This is interesting. Explain what you mean by interest? Putting money in a bank? A bond? Preferred stock? Notes Payable? Be more specific.

Today, there are many of mindboggling ways to invest (or speculate, whichever name appeals you more). Comprehension of them is way beyond me, even though all wizardry generally looks like speculation on speculation. Ultimately, it's going to look like speculation on speculation on speculation on speculation ........ endless.

However, leaving mindboggling particulars aside, the driving force remains the same - "getting something for a little piece of nothing." Since, investors invest X amount of dough in whatever (it doesn't really matter), they expect to get back a(a>1)X each year. That, roughly speaking, demand economy to grow a times/year to keep investors satisfied, or it demands noninvesting (for living ) class to get somewhat poorer; but the profit a is sacred. Most frequently, it's the combination of economy growth and "poors get poor" that keeps investor class happy. Current human concept of investing, be it bonds or stocks or ..., can't be ethical, since a) it assumes human expansion can be boundless (reminder, warp drive is not invented yet ), b) since it defies fundamental laws of nature (and conservative values too :)) to allows critical mass investor to live off labor of less fortunates just because they've invested a cool mil 30 years ago. I badly want to drive 100,000 miles on a gallon too.

Today, there are many of mindboggling ways to invest (or speculate, whichever name appeals you more). Comprehension of them is way beyond me, even though all wizardry generally looks like speculation on speculation. Ultimately, it's going to look like speculation on speculation on speculation on speculation ........ endless.

However, leaving mindboggling particulars aside, the driving force remains the same - "getting something for a little piece of nothing." Since, investors invest X amount of dough in whatever (it doesn't really matter), they expect to get back a(a>1)X each year. That, roughly speaking, demand economy to grow a times/year to keep investors satisfied, or it demands noninvesting (for living ) class to get somewhat poorer; but the profit a is sacred. Most frequently, it's the combination of economy growth and "poors get poor" that keeps investor class happy. Current human concept of investing, be it bonds or stocks or ..., can't be ethical, since a) it assumes human expansion can be boundless (reminder, warp drive is not invented yet ), b) since it defies fundamental laws of nature (and conservative values too :)) to allows critical mass investor to live off labor of less fortunates just because they've invested a cool mil 30 years ago. I badly want to drive 100,000 miles on a gallon too.

Are you saying that the economy relies on the working class to become senseless-controlable-sheep in order for the powerful to manipulate them, or to rise even higher above them? Evidenced by for example the super high ratio of Executive compensation to the "working class"(adjusted for inflation)? So that is why the economy has been climbing by leaps and bounds, by the manipulation of the majority of the power companies? Is this what you're leaning towards? Because this seems to me a logical combination.

Once again, the root of this evil is the artifact of the corporation. The process of incorporation was invented by government in order to create a new class or aristocrats.

The concentration of unearned capital that you decry is not an inherent flaw in the capitalist system. It is the result of the invention of corporations.

So far, every criticism that has been leveled against the capitalist model on Sci Forums has in fact been a criticism of corporations.

Once again, the root of this evil is the artifact of the corporation. The process of incorporation was invented by government in order to create a new class or aristocrats.

The concentration of unearned capital that you decry is not an inherent flaw in the capitalist system. It is the result of the invention of corporations.

So far, every criticism that has been leveled against the capitalist model on Sci Forums has in fact been a criticism of corporations.


I want to here dixonmassey's response to this. Sciforums is a mostly moderate-democratic type forum, I want to hear from a corporation apologist.

Are you saying that the economy relies on the working class to become senseless-controlable-sheep in order for the powerful to manipulate them, or to rise even higher above them? Evidenced by for example the super high ratio of Executive compensation to the "working class"(adjusted for inflation)? So that is why the economy has been climbing by leaps and bounds, by the manipulation of the majority of the power companies? Is this what you're leaning towards? Because this seems to me a logical combination.

There is definite notion that the current state of things is the only possible, the only just and everything else is "communism". thanks to the decades of propaganda, one can brand anything "commie" and do not bother to explain oneself. I do think that western societies, as any other, are "guided" to different extent. In other words, there are social control scientists making sure no calamity on the national scale will mushroom. In the past, Freudian teaching was applied not only to sell stuff but to sell the social order too. Today, it's preaching of superindividualism which keeps people in check. People are trained to believe that they are absolutely self-sufficient, self-reliant units who need no one/nothing else to feel complete, "make it" in life, etc. I don't think it's right to speak about the working class these days. There is none. There is just an assembly of working individuals. Ironically, the freer person becomes the easier to brain-control such a free person. From my amateur prospective, plutocracy faces a complicated profit maximization problem - "how to maximize profits while keeping social stability and sufficient number of people working?" I think rich folks are doing an excellent job solving it.





There is lots of interesting stuff th

There is definite notion that the current state of things is the only possible, the only just and everything else is "communism". thanks to the decades of propaganda, one can brand anything "commie" and do not bother to explain oneself. I do think that western societies, as any other, are "guided" to different extent. In other words, there are social control scientists making sure no calamity on the national scale will mushroom. In the past, Freudian teaching was applied not only to sell stuff but to sell the social order too. Today, it's preaching of superindividualism which keeps people in check. People are trained to believe that they are absolutely self-sufficient, self-reliant units who need no one/nothing else to feel complete, "make it" in life, etc. I don't think it's right to speak about the working class these days. There is none. There is just an assembly of working individuals. Ironically, the freer person becomes the easier to brain-control such a free person. From my amateur prospective, plutocracy faces a complicated profit maximization problem - "how to maximize profits while keeping social stability and sufficient number of people working?" I think rich folks are doing an excellent job solving it.





There is lots of interesting stuff th



I believe what you say, because it sounds EXTREMELY PLAUSIBLE TO ME. I want to know how do we prevent the rich from doing this. The internet is the one thing we need to keep us intellectually, well, alive. And now Bush is trying to limit it, controll the INTERNET!