Greens' Proposed restrictions in Kiwi Saver?

Forums › Off topic › Greens' Proposed restrictions in Kiwi Saver?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 12

17344 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6349

Lifetime subscriber

#1614854 20-Aug-2016 16:56

shk292:
The problem with this is where does it stop? Today, cluster bombs and nuclear weapons (the latter I have no problem with BTW but that's another subject), and tobacco. Tomorrow alcohol. Next week sugary drinks? Then meat? Then oil? Then cars?

The problem is if you divest from everything the Green Part doesn't like, you have a very small investment base

The cluster bomb thing I understand, we signed treaties, there is some progress, we have legal obligations on that. The tobacco thing, is it a similar thing or something different?

shk292

2873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2012

Lifetime subscriber

#1614856 20-Aug-2016 17:14

gzt:
The cluster bomb thing I understand, we signed treaties, there is some progress, we have legal obligations on that. The tobacco thing, is it a similar thing or something different?

I'm not quite sure what you mean, sorry

What I was trying to point out is that different people object to different things, and the Green Party object to more things than most reasonable people. If we only invest in companies or things that the Greens approve of, that is a severe restriction on investment options. We've already seen pressure coming on Auckland Council to stop investing in Coca Cola Ltd, for example.

Some of the companies they're objecting to this time around, eg Honeywell, Northrop Grumman, GD are enormous and the fraction of their activities devoted to cluster munitions is probably extremely small. So it's quite misleading to say "you're investing in cluster bombs" if you have shares from these companies in your portfolio

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1614860 20-Aug-2016 17:31

shk292:

Some of the companies they're objecting to this time around, eg Honeywell, Northrop Grumman, GD are enormous and the fraction of their activities devoted to cluster munitions is probably extremely small. So it's quite misleading to say "you're investing in cluster bombs" if you have shares from these companies in your portfolio

No - it's quite correct indeed to say that.

shk292

2873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2012

Lifetime subscriber

#1614889 20-Aug-2016 18:47

Fred99:

No - it's quite correct indeed to say that.

Ah yes the old "oh yes it is" proof. Almost as overwhelming as the "liar liar pants on fire" legal defence. Well you got me beat, well done

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18726 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15570

Lifetime subscriber

#1614890 20-Aug-2016 18:55

shk292:

Fred99:

No - it's quite correct indeed to say that.

Ah yes the old "oh yes it is" proof. Almost as overwhelming as the "liar liar pants on fire" legal defence. Well you got me beat, well done

I fail to understand this logic. If you invest in a company that manufactures cluster bombs, you invest in cluster bombs, regardless of how much other stuff the company makes. How can you possibly see this any differently?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1614893 20-Aug-2016 18:58

shk292:

Fred99:

No - it's quite correct indeed to say that.

Ah yes the old "oh yes it is" proof. Almost as overwhelming as the "liar liar pants on fire" legal defence. Well you got me beat, well done

No problem - it was easy. Would you like to ELI5 how a cluster bomb maker making other stuff (as well as cluster bombs) means that maker of cluster bombs isn't a maker of cluster bombs any more - at least in your mind?

It reminds me of a perpetual virgin saying "that one didn't count".

wsnz

649 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 198

#1614896 20-Aug-2016 19:09

Rikkitic:

I fail to understand this logic. If you invest in a company that manufactures cluster bombs, you invest in cluster bombs, regardless of how much other stuff the company makes. How can you possibly see this any differently?

The NZTA & AT implemented a transportation ticketing system from a company that also make weapon systems. Does your logic therefore apply in this particular case as well?

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

gzt

17344 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6349

Lifetime subscriber

#1614897 20-Aug-2016 19:12

shk292:
What I was trying to point out is that different people object to different things, and the Green Party object to more things than most reasonable people. If we only invest in companies or things that the Greens approve of, that is a severe restriction on investment options.

It is a matter of international treaty, and New Zealand law giving effect to that treaty:

"Cluster munitions prohibition act 2009: A person commits an offence who provides or invests funds with the intention that the funds be used, or knowing that they are to be used, in the development or production of cluster munitions."

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2009/0068/latest/DLM2171671.html

It is not a matter of opinion. It is pretty clear to me and anyone who looks that fund managers have an obligation to review, and in fact that is what some have been doing this week that have not done it already.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18726 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15570

Lifetime subscriber

#1614900 20-Aug-2016 19:20

wsnz:

Rikkitic:

I fail to understand this logic. If you invest in a company that manufactures cluster bombs, you invest in cluster bombs, regardless of how much other stuff the company makes. How can you possibly see this any differently?

The NZTA & AT implemented a transportation ticketing system from a company that also make weapon systems. Does your logic therefore apply in this particular case as well?

I don't see why it wouldn't. Why should companies or other organisations be exempted from any moral responsibility for the ultimate consequences of their actions just because they bury them in a chain of suppliers? However, doing business with a company is not the same as investing in it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

frankv

5690 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3649

Lifetime subscriber

#1614907 20-Aug-2016 20:00

shk292:

The problem with this is where does it stop? Today, cluster bombs and nuclear weapons (the latter I have no problem with BTW but that's another subject), and tobacco. Tomorrow alcohol. Next week sugary drinks? Then meat? Then oil? Then cars?

The problem is if you divest from everything the Green Part doesn't like, you have a very small investment base

The Domino theory was discredited in Vietnam. Just because cluster bombs, land mines, ans nukes are banned, doesn't have anything to do with whether anything else is banned.

And thanks for mentioning tobacco... the least ethical industry in the world, where they deliberately misled their customers about the dangers involved in using their products.

There is an infinite variety of things you can invest in instead of harmful industries... how about research into a new battery technology, or building EVs in NZ? Or NZ's world-leading biotech? Or tourism?

frankv

5690 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3649

Lifetime subscriber

#1614910 20-Aug-2016 20:03

mdooher:

My "Line in the sand" (this term originally meant the exact opposite of how we use it now) is simple...if it's legal then its fine.

It's exactly because of this attitude that we need our Govt to make unethical investing illegal. If people can't or won't make a decision based on their own morals, then the rest of us need to be protected from them.

wsnz

649 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 198

#1614929 20-Aug-2016 21:18

Rikkitic:

I don't see why it wouldn't. Why should companies or other organisations be exempted from any moral responsibility for the ultimate consequences of their actions just because they bury them in a chain of suppliers? However, doing business with a company is not the same as investing in it.

Whether you are investing in a business or purchasing their products & services, you are supporting them. The outcome is the same either way you look at it.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18726 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15570

Lifetime subscriber

#1614936 20-Aug-2016 21:35

Then I guess you should think about who you support.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Geektastic

17960 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8377

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1615045 21-Aug-2016 12:01

Cluster bombs are very effective area denial systems. They will continue to be made and used, I have no doubt. If someone invented one with a biodegradable explosive or detonator so that the munitions became inert after 12 months, that would be useful.

There are funds that do not invest in those companies if that is your wish: if everyone truly objects and moves their business to those funds, no doubt the funds that do invest in them will either cease to do so or cease to exist.

gzt

17344 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6349

Lifetime subscriber

#1615048 21-Aug-2016 12:07

12 months or even 12 days would not be short enough to mitigate the issues.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 12