Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

gzt

10173 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1558


  Reply # 1614854 20-Aug-2016 16:56
Send private message

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?

1507 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 782


  Reply # 1614856 20-Aug-2016 17:14
Send private message

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


7347 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3841


  Reply # 1614860 20-Aug-2016 17:31
2 people support this post
Send private message

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.


1507 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 782


  Reply # 1614889 20-Aug-2016 18:47
Send private message

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 wink


Glurp
8205 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3780

Subscriber

  Reply # 1614890 20-Aug-2016 18:55
One person supports this post
Send private message

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 wink

 

 

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?





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


7347 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3841


  Reply # 1614893 20-Aug-2016 18:58
One person supports this post
Send private message

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 wink

 

 

 

 

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".


500 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 118


  Reply # 1614896 20-Aug-2016 19:09
Send private message

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?


gzt

10173 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1558


  Reply # 1614897 20-Aug-2016 19:12
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.

Glurp
8205 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3780

Subscriber

  Reply # 1614900 20-Aug-2016 19:20
Send private message

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.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


2451 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1201

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1614907 20-Aug-2016 20:00
Send private message

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?

 

 


2451 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1201

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1614910 20-Aug-2016 20:03
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.

 

 


500 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 118


  Reply # 1614929 20-Aug-2016 21:18
Send private message

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.


Glurp
8205 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3780

Subscriber

  Reply # 1614936 20-Aug-2016 21:35
Send private message

Then I guess you should think about who you support.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


11887 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3854

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1615045 21-Aug-2016 12:01
One person supports this post
Send private message

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

10173 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1558


  Reply # 1615048 21-Aug-2016 12:07
Send private message

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 | 11 | 12
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.