It's a circle though. Lenders will lend to anything they think is profitable, and not to things they think aren't profitable. There's a long argument to be made about whether that's good or bad, but my view is that it works best if we make good things profitable, and bad things unprofitable. Which is what we're trying to do by making companies who do bad things be liable for the externalities of that behavior, that aren't being properly accounted for. It may or may not be a crude tool, but it makes sense. (And on the flip side we can subsidize good things, whose beneficial externalities aren't being properly accounted for, such that they are more attractive investments).
The important thing Republicans are doing is flipping those incentives in the opposite direction. They will shield gun manufacturers, fossil fuel companies, and sexist and racist employers, from liability, making them more profitable (or at least less unprofitable). And then they will remove all subsidies, or even penalize, things like green energy and diversity, so that those are less profitable.
Once you do that, the lenders will follow suit. You don't need to tell them. They'll follow the money.
Alternatively, if, because of public preferences, bad things remain unprofitable, and good things become more profitable, (we can only hope), the lenders can still follow the money. They couldn't be liable for discriminating if they're just chasing profit. Unless Republicans really want to tell them they can't do THAT.
So it seems like a bit of a side show. The real action is in using the power of the state to make favored companies and interests more profitable, and unfavored ones less profitable. And they have all kinds of plans for that.
If state action outweighs consumer preference to be virtuous - and it usually does; only the wealthier can afford to factor that into their choices - that's where the real problem is.
To me, ESG isn't dissimilar from Christians who try to organize their portfolios to avoid investments they consider to be "sinful" or "not glorifying to God." I had a friend growing up whose dad spent hours and hours per month making sure his investments were "pure."
But when we try to apply a similar modality to rating companies for making responsible investments, that doesn't fly with them.
Ya that's the long argument :) Individuals can make those choices, but for corporations, is their duty to their shareholders to maximize profit for them? Or is it some other goals? And of course it's not just the wealthy. Pension funds are massive investors who are trying to provide a secure income to middle class senior citizens. Charitable endowments are another example of a large investor where it's not just rich guys trying to get richer.
It's dicey, I think, because I understand the desire to look to something other than profit. But the profit incentive works so well - it's really hard to find something better - that it seems smarter to me to use the power of the state to change the profitability of various activities. Ideally with a clear headed view to the costs and benefits that aren't being properly captured and accounted for. Climate change is the most obvious and easiest example. Of course, the state is rarely so efficient because you have interests lobbying, and all kinds of problems with democratic incentives, so more often the state reinforces existing bad ways of doing things, than being a vehicle for change. Although it may be different in times of extreme crisis.
To Michael's point, regardless of what the government is or isn't doing, the private sector can still try to take action. And smart actors will do just that. For example, insurers can say, I don't care what government policy is, we're not going to issue property insurance in Florida, your pockets are not deep enough to make it anything other than a bad risk for us. And DeSantis can throw a temper tantrum, but you'd either have to force private companies to do business they don't want to do, or massively subsidize that business to make it profitable for them.
Ultimately that's what Republicans are trying to do, but, in a lot of cases, their pockets just aren't going to be deep enough. At some point reality wins out. The question is always when and how, because we as a species are all too good at delaying reckonings.
My brain is too fried today to think effectively. (Which is probably why Michael tried to help me nail my points home.)
I don't eat at Chik-Fil-A because I disagree with how they treat several marginalized communities. As a company, the owners/Board of Directors/shareholders/management have a right to take these positions. Maybe they hurt the bottom line; maybe they improve it.
One could make the same argument about Substack. I'm appalled by some of the things they allow on this platform. Yet, I still use it because it was the most effective means to get this message to people before the election. Until they go full Twitter and Meta and put their finger on the scale to tip it in the fascist direction, I can stand it here.
That's not a very coherent reply to your thoughtful comment, but it's what I have in my tank today.
It's a good answer. It's the liberal answer. The hard question is what to do about externalities. They're not as obvious with Chick-fil-A (that's how my autocorrect spelled it?? 🤷) or Substack as they are with, say, fossil fuel companies or gun manufacturers. I think a liberal state - different from a libertarian state - has to make some effort to account for those. But of course we can get it wrong. (And sometimes it's just people making choices that aren't good for them, rather than true externalities.) The other side doesn't believe in externalities, or when they do, they consider things that are bad for humanity to be good for them. Lots and lots of examples of that in Christian Nationalism.
There are so many red herrings in politics. It's hard to figure out what's really important and what's a distraction. I suppose the reason reproductive health care is my biggest issue is because the moral clarity is so strong. If someone wants health care, someone else wants to provide it, and you make that illegal, it's so obviously wtf. Especially considering the consequences of not getting that health care.
I do suspect true liberalism would be more popular than progressivism, especially here. Americans like their freedom. If the Republicans win and do what we think they're going to, I think that's the most effective form for the resistance to take. I wish we could get there without the Republicans winning.
Chick-Fil-A is the proper spelling. I'm an abominable southerner. I should know this. Before they lost my business, I went through the drive-thru for chicken biscuits often.
I don't know how we resolve our issues once we win. We cannot force people to believe things they do not believe. We can't control minds. I think ESG provides a good roadmap for companies that want to invest in those things. As a people, we have to democratically decide those things are worth investing in, which makes those requirements palatable for more people. I hope we get to that point.
Project 2025 Step 1: Do everything possible to prevent effective public governance at the federal, state AND local level. (that is, governance that looks at public investments through the lens of long-term resilience, the equitable distribution of the economy, and the common good)
Project 2025 Step 2: Weaponize a nefarious intrusive government to prevent private sector businesses from making similar assessments of future performance for the common good (.i.e., their customers, employees and shareholders/investors)
Project 2025 Step 3: Leverage their stranglehold on the Courts to make sure that Step 1 and Step 2 survive until there is no common wealth, only serfdom
I've repeatedly said throughout this project that our billionaire overlords want to turn us into medieval serfs, and the Fascist Republican political class will help them in exchange for being spared.
It's a circle though. Lenders will lend to anything they think is profitable, and not to things they think aren't profitable. There's a long argument to be made about whether that's good or bad, but my view is that it works best if we make good things profitable, and bad things unprofitable. Which is what we're trying to do by making companies who do bad things be liable for the externalities of that behavior, that aren't being properly accounted for. It may or may not be a crude tool, but it makes sense. (And on the flip side we can subsidize good things, whose beneficial externalities aren't being properly accounted for, such that they are more attractive investments).
The important thing Republicans are doing is flipping those incentives in the opposite direction. They will shield gun manufacturers, fossil fuel companies, and sexist and racist employers, from liability, making them more profitable (or at least less unprofitable). And then they will remove all subsidies, or even penalize, things like green energy and diversity, so that those are less profitable.
Once you do that, the lenders will follow suit. You don't need to tell them. They'll follow the money.
Alternatively, if, because of public preferences, bad things remain unprofitable, and good things become more profitable, (we can only hope), the lenders can still follow the money. They couldn't be liable for discriminating if they're just chasing profit. Unless Republicans really want to tell them they can't do THAT.
So it seems like a bit of a side show. The real action is in using the power of the state to make favored companies and interests more profitable, and unfavored ones less profitable. And they have all kinds of plans for that.
If state action outweighs consumer preference to be virtuous - and it usually does; only the wealthier can afford to factor that into their choices - that's where the real problem is.
To me, ESG isn't dissimilar from Christians who try to organize their portfolios to avoid investments they consider to be "sinful" or "not glorifying to God." I had a friend growing up whose dad spent hours and hours per month making sure his investments were "pure."
But when we try to apply a similar modality to rating companies for making responsible investments, that doesn't fly with them.
Ya that's the long argument :) Individuals can make those choices, but for corporations, is their duty to their shareholders to maximize profit for them? Or is it some other goals? And of course it's not just the wealthy. Pension funds are massive investors who are trying to provide a secure income to middle class senior citizens. Charitable endowments are another example of a large investor where it's not just rich guys trying to get richer.
It's dicey, I think, because I understand the desire to look to something other than profit. But the profit incentive works so well - it's really hard to find something better - that it seems smarter to me to use the power of the state to change the profitability of various activities. Ideally with a clear headed view to the costs and benefits that aren't being properly captured and accounted for. Climate change is the most obvious and easiest example. Of course, the state is rarely so efficient because you have interests lobbying, and all kinds of problems with democratic incentives, so more often the state reinforces existing bad ways of doing things, than being a vehicle for change. Although it may be different in times of extreme crisis.
To Michael's point, regardless of what the government is or isn't doing, the private sector can still try to take action. And smart actors will do just that. For example, insurers can say, I don't care what government policy is, we're not going to issue property insurance in Florida, your pockets are not deep enough to make it anything other than a bad risk for us. And DeSantis can throw a temper tantrum, but you'd either have to force private companies to do business they don't want to do, or massively subsidize that business to make it profitable for them.
Ultimately that's what Republicans are trying to do, but, in a lot of cases, their pockets just aren't going to be deep enough. At some point reality wins out. The question is always when and how, because we as a species are all too good at delaying reckonings.
My brain is too fried today to think effectively. (Which is probably why Michael tried to help me nail my points home.)
I don't eat at Chik-Fil-A because I disagree with how they treat several marginalized communities. As a company, the owners/Board of Directors/shareholders/management have a right to take these positions. Maybe they hurt the bottom line; maybe they improve it.
One could make the same argument about Substack. I'm appalled by some of the things they allow on this platform. Yet, I still use it because it was the most effective means to get this message to people before the election. Until they go full Twitter and Meta and put their finger on the scale to tip it in the fascist direction, I can stand it here.
That's not a very coherent reply to your thoughtful comment, but it's what I have in my tank today.
It's a good answer. It's the liberal answer. The hard question is what to do about externalities. They're not as obvious with Chick-fil-A (that's how my autocorrect spelled it?? 🤷) or Substack as they are with, say, fossil fuel companies or gun manufacturers. I think a liberal state - different from a libertarian state - has to make some effort to account for those. But of course we can get it wrong. (And sometimes it's just people making choices that aren't good for them, rather than true externalities.) The other side doesn't believe in externalities, or when they do, they consider things that are bad for humanity to be good for them. Lots and lots of examples of that in Christian Nationalism.
There are so many red herrings in politics. It's hard to figure out what's really important and what's a distraction. I suppose the reason reproductive health care is my biggest issue is because the moral clarity is so strong. If someone wants health care, someone else wants to provide it, and you make that illegal, it's so obviously wtf. Especially considering the consequences of not getting that health care.
I do suspect true liberalism would be more popular than progressivism, especially here. Americans like their freedom. If the Republicans win and do what we think they're going to, I think that's the most effective form for the resistance to take. I wish we could get there without the Republicans winning.
Chick-Fil-A is the proper spelling. I'm an abominable southerner. I should know this. Before they lost my business, I went through the drive-thru for chicken biscuits often.
I don't know how we resolve our issues once we win. We cannot force people to believe things they do not believe. We can't control minds. I think ESG provides a good roadmap for companies that want to invest in those things. As a people, we have to democratically decide those things are worth investing in, which makes those requirements palatable for more people. I hope we get to that point.
Geez! That dude was dedicated! It’s a weird mentality! I agree with ya!
Project 2025 Step 1: Do everything possible to prevent effective public governance at the federal, state AND local level. (that is, governance that looks at public investments through the lens of long-term resilience, the equitable distribution of the economy, and the common good)
Project 2025 Step 2: Weaponize a nefarious intrusive government to prevent private sector businesses from making similar assessments of future performance for the common good (.i.e., their customers, employees and shareholders/investors)
Project 2025 Step 3: Leverage their stranglehold on the Courts to make sure that Step 1 and Step 2 survive until there is no common wealth, only serfdom
I've repeatedly said throughout this project that our billionaire overlords want to turn us into medieval serfs, and the Fascist Republican political class will help them in exchange for being spared.
Exactly. Step two matters just as much as step one.
Great. Thank you so much. I will forward your message to Judy Leob who organizes our speaker series. Thank you again!
Hi Andra,
If you would still like to speak to Seniors Taking Action, does Wednesday, August 7 work for you? Cheers. Susan
I can do it. Have someone reach out to me to schedule. Thank you.