joedirt 0 #26 May 29, 2007 Quote Again we can stop our corporations from outsourcing to these countries, and we can ban imports I know these seem like obvious answers, and I thought they made sense too when I was younger, growing up in a city that relied on factory jobs, but Either one of these things would cripple our economy which relies on international trade. These corporations which "outsource" are what keep our economy going. These corporations being profitable, is what keeps capital, both foreign and domestic, in our economy. If foreign capital was eliminated from our economy our GDP would be falling swiftly. If Ford and GM don't find ways to be profitable, no one will be working for those companies, and no one will be making money off those products. We've reached a point in our history where a company can ship a product worth a buck fifty half way around the world and still make a profit off of it. It's pretty well accepted in economics that what you restrict in imports, you lose in exports. It will get you nowhere. Look around your house and see how many things were made in the USA. Profitability is the reason why capitalism works so well. Even China has started giving more control to private enterprise, because it capitalizes on mans desire to uplift himself. Come on now, I don't think your weak, I just think you don't understand what drives entrepreneurship, which drives our economy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richards 0 #27 May 29, 2007 QuoteEither one of these things would cripple our economy which relies on international trade. These corporations which "outsource" are what keep our economy going. These corporations being profitable, is what keeps capital, both foreign and domestic, in our economy. If foreign capital was eliminated from our economy our GDP would be falling swiftly. If Ford and GM don't find ways to be profitable, no one will be working for those companies, and no one will be making money off those products. We've reached a point in our history where a company can ship a product worth a buck fifty half way around the world and still make a profit off of it. It's pretty well accepted in economics that what you restrict in imports, you lose in exports. It will get you nowhere. Look around your house and see how many things were made in the USA. Profitability is the reason why capitalism works so well. Even China has started giving more control to private enterprise, because it capitalizes on mans desire to uplift himself. My answers were intentionally simplistic, but obviously I realise there is more to it than that. I do wish for a degree of ethical behaviour in international trade, but I realise there will be economic constraints. I do not however beleive that we have to accept complete status quo on this issue either. OK these countries will obviously not have the same human rights standards for their employees as we have but we can at least draw some lines as to what we require for them to do business with us. It is not as though we need them more than they need us. For example, the slavery of children for cheap labour in the chocolate industry in africa. We may not get westerner politicians to be willing to draw a line on issues like oil, but perhaps consumers could be willing to accept higher choclate prices, if that is what it would take to eliminate that abuse. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #28 May 29, 2007 Quote>While you were earning your stock options at Qualcomm etc. exAFO was >serving . . . Yep, and I admire him for that. He was (fortunately) not just taking care of himself and his loved ones, but putting his life on the line for people he had never met. >The people we remember on memorial day did not merely throw their lives >away for strangers, they fought in support of ideas bigger than >themselves. The sacrificed in the service of freedom and other noble > causes. Agreed 100%. I am glad they did not have a "fuck you, I'm here to take care of myself and my loved ones" attitude. I had an altruistic reason to wear my country's uniform. I'm out and done. I no longer have an obligation to save the world, nor should I be held responsible for the livelihood of others...Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #29 May 29, 2007 Quote I agree. A Marxist rant. No sources, no footnotes. Didn't even spell a company's name right. Not worth reading - I just skimmed it and saw the usual anti-American diatribes...{yawn} It's really more anti-First World than America in particular. And if you missed the point of the article, well, that's sad. In the name of 'improving' the wealth of developing nations, the First World went in and told them all to switch to economies based on single cash crops. IE, the banana republic. Because of climate and cheap labor, it's would be best to grow coffee in South America rather than in Hawaii. US consumers would get cheaper coffee and they would get hard currency. Anyone that has managed their own investment portfolio knows the stupidity of putting your whole basket on a single vehicle. What's killed many of the banana/coffee republics is that newer emerging nations like Vietnam can do the same thing, and steal those money away. And even without that, commodities rise and fall wildly. End result is that we benefit, but they were probably better off before. Hardly a surprise that they'd rather grow cocaine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #30 May 29, 2007 QuoteQuote>While you were earning your stock options at Qualcomm etc. exAFO was >serving . . . Yep, and I admire him for that. He was (fortunately) not just taking care of himself and his loved ones, but putting his life on the line for people he had never met. >The people we remember on memorial day did not merely throw their lives >away for strangers, they fought in support of ideas bigger than >themselves. The sacrificed in the service of freedom and other noble > causes. Agreed 100%. I am glad they did not have a "fuck you, I'm here to take care of myself and my loved ones" attitude. I had an altruistic reason to wear my country's uniform. I'm out and done. I no longer have an obligation to save the world, nor should I be held responsible for the livelihood of others... I'm glad it was altruism and not a ROTC scholarship that motivated you. (Not that there's anything wrong with ROTC scholarships) The US military does not "save the world", it looks after the interests of the USA. Serving in the military gave you no special obligation to save the world, and does not relieve you or anyone else of their responsibilities to their fellow men and women.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #31 May 29, 2007 QuoteQuote Again we can stop our corporations from outsourcing to these countries, and we can ban imports I know these seem like obvious answers, and I thought they made sense too when I was younger, growing up in a city that relied on factory jobs, but Either one of these things would cripple our economy which relies on international trade. These corporations which "outsource" are what keep our economy going. These corporations being profitable, is what keeps capital, both foreign and domestic, in our economy. If foreign capital was eliminated from our economy our GDP would be falling swiftly. If Ford and GM don't find ways to be profitable, no one will be working for those companies, and no one will be making money off those products. We've reached a point in our history where a company can ship a product worth a buck fifty half way around the world and still make a profit off of it. It's pretty well accepted in economics that what you restrict in imports, you lose in exports. It will get you nowhere. Look around your house and see how many things were made in the USA. Profitability is the reason why capitalism works so well. Even China has started giving more control to private enterprise, because it capitalizes on mans desire to uplift himself. Come on now, I don't think your weak, I just think you don't understand what drives entrepreneurship, which drives our economy. My 403b retirement plan has an option to invest in a fund that only buys stock in companies that have agreed to certain ethical principles. Last time I looked, that fund was doing just as well as the anything-goes fund.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #32 May 29, 2007 QuoteMy 403b retirement plan has an option to invest in a fund that only buys stock in companies that have agreed to certain ethical principles. Last time I looked, that fund was doing just as well as the anything-goes fund. Perhaps, though I think it's premature to say. By design you're less diversified. The counter to the SRI movement, the Vice Fund, has outperformed both the S&P500 and most SRI funds as well. Domini is one of the biggest names in SRI. Their current performance info current to 3/31/2007: DSEFX 9.76% 7.47% 4.98% 7.34% 9.89% S&P 500 11.83% 10.04% 6.26% 8.20% 10.69% (1 yr, 3yr, 5yr, 10yr, and since 6/31/1991) In not a single period did it match the large cap benchmark which you can purchase for ~10 basis points per year. .8% per year over 16 years is a lot of money lost. For that reason, it looks like they switched to active management this past November. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,466 #33 May 29, 2007 >I had an altruistic reason to wear my country's uniform. Well, there you go. I'm glad you did, and I am impressed by people who maintain that attitude throughout their lives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #34 May 29, 2007 One more time. Read THIS >book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_ManI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #35 May 30, 2007 Quote>I had an altruistic reason to wear my country's uniform. Well, there you go. I'm glad you did, and I am impressed by people who maintain that attitude throughout their lives. There's a big difference between feel good "jam today" spending as you endenture your grandkids and signing your own ass up today. The first shows nothing but a lack of foresight, the second shows character and commitment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joedirt 0 #36 May 30, 2007 Quote My 403b retirement plan has an option to invest in a fund that only buys stock in companies that have agreed to certain ethical principles. Last time I looked, that fund was doing just as well as the anything-goes fund Good luck with that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #37 May 30, 2007 What seems like abuse to us only seems like it because of the high standards of living we have created. These high standards of living didnt come out of a vacuum, before we had what we have now we also had no child labour laws.We have them now because we can afford them. If we withdrew our factories from Africa or Asia those who are there would be worse off, not better off, you would be taking them down one step on the ladder. It may seem noble, but then the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If you would like to read more on this I reccomend Why Globalisation Works by MArtin Wolf http://www.amazon.com/Why-Globalization-Works-Martin-Wolf/dp/0300102526 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #38 May 31, 2007 Quote Quote My 403b retirement plan has an option to invest in a fund that only buys stock in companies that have agreed to certain ethical principles. Last time I looked, that fund was doing just as well as the anything-goes fund Good luck with that. Wait, he didn't say he'd actually put his money where his mouth was, just that the fund he has the option of investing in is doing as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KidWicked 0 #39 May 31, 2007 Quote.8% per year over 16 years is a lot of money lost. For that reason, it looks like they switched to active management this past November. You seem to be implying that actively managed funds are superior to index-linked funds over the long term, which is total nonesense.Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richards 0 #40 May 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhat seems like abuse to us only seems like it because of the high standards of living we have created. These high standards of living didnt come out of a vacuum, before we had what we have now we also had no child labour laws.We have them now because we can afford them. If we withdrew our factories from Africa or Asia those who are there would be worse off, not better off, you would be taking them down one step on the ladder. It may seem noble, but then the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You get me all wrong. I am not anti globalism. If anything I am extremely to the right on most issues. I do have problems with the way western countries will benefit via trade with countries that will abuse human rights while turning a blind eye. Lets take africa with the cocoa trade. Human rights groups have reported slavery of children who are worked from morning until night in the cocoa feilds, and beaten savagely if they do not produce enough. This abuse of little children allows us to consume chocolate without paying higher prices. Would you suggest that cutting off chocolate imports with countries that do that would make these kids worse off? I will not play high and mighty here because I do eat chocolate, but if putting a stop to that abuse means that I have to pay 10 times more for a luxury treat then so be it. Just because it would be unrealistic to impose our level of employee standards does not excuse outright abuse. The argument that our economy will suffer if we do not benefit is not a good one. Are we as westerners entitled to maintain a standard of living even if it comes on the backs of brutalised children? Do we have dominion over 3rd worlders as we do the animals? I realize that with globailism we will do better than the 3rd world countries we trade with and that is just the way of the world, but to suggest that we cannot do anything about it is just a cop-out. It's not all or nothing. We are not left to choose between no trade vs getting rich off hideous abuse; there is middle ground and we should be putting pressure on other countries to acheive that. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,673 #41 May 31, 2007 Quote Quote Quote My 403b retirement plan has an option to invest in a fund that only buys stock in companies that have agreed to certain ethical principles. Last time I looked, that fund was doing just as well as the anything-goes fund Good luck with that. Wait, he didn't say he'd actually put his money where his mouth was, just that the fund he has the option of investing in is doing as well. Correct. Ethical business practice is not in conflict with good management and profitability.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #42 May 31, 2007 QuoteQuote.8% per year over 16 years is a lot of money lost. For that reason, it looks like they switched to active management this past November. You seem to be implying that actively managed funds are superior to index-linked funds over the long term, which is total nonesense. Nope. I noted that the index-minus approach (remove all the bad companies) failed badly, so they're throwing in the towel on that approach. I wouldn't take them as a active fund either but I'm more likely to invest in the Vice fund anyhow. Altria has been in my portfolio dating back to the 90s. If gun companies paid 4% dividends, I'd consider them too. The one weakness for indexes, aside from picking the wrong allocation, is that they only can go long on the market. There are methods for generating .5-1% of alpha on a consistent basis without incurring an inordinate increase in risk. But those are based on science, not gun slinging on the trading floor. The key is watching those fees. As a result passive ETFs still dominate my holdings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites philh 0 #43 May 31, 2007 I agree with you, i fpeople are being used as slaved that is dispacable and we should boycott any produce from such a supplier. But one hsould distinguish between slavery and low wage work. They ar enot the same at all. What seems like low wage work to us is not necessarily perceived the same way for others. As long we are agreed slavery should never be accepted , but the same does not ring true for low wage work then there is no debate here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #44 May 31, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote My 403b retirement plan has an option to invest in a fund that only buys stock in companies that have agreed to certain ethical principles. Last time I looked, that fund was doing just as well as the anything-goes fund Good luck with that. Wait, he didn't say he'd actually put his money where his mouth was, just that the fund he has the option of investing in is doing as well. Correct. Ethical business practice is not in conflict with good management and profitability. Now I'm confused, is this your justification for NOT putting your money in the ethical fund? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites joedirt 0 #45 May 31, 2007 I'm somewhat confused too, but I think from these last few posts, everyone is in agreement, the most money made in mutual funds is in commissions. Every broker knows just beating the S&P 500 index is considered good, but they won't tell you to buy an index ETF. Without dividends they're all speculation to me anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,673 #46 May 31, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote My 403b retirement plan has an option to invest in a fund that only buys stock in companies that have agreed to certain ethical principles. Last time I looked, that fund was doing just as well as the anything-goes fund Good luck with that. Wait, he didn't say he'd actually put his money where his mouth was, just that the fund he has the option of investing in is doing as well. Correct. Ethical business practice is not in conflict with good management and profitability. Now I'm confused, is this your justification for NOT putting your money in the ethical fund? No, its unjustification for not not investing in unethical companies.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Richards 0 #47 May 31, 2007 QuoteBut one hsould distinguish between slavery and low wage work. They ar enot the same at all. What seems like low wage work to us is not necessarily perceived the same way for others. As long we are agreed slavery should never be accepted , but the same does not ring true for low wage work then there is no debate here. I guess there would be 2 questions to ask. 1. Did our trade with them worsen the situation? 2. Are we capitalizing on unnecessary hardship? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #41 May 31, 2007 Quote Quote Quote My 403b retirement plan has an option to invest in a fund that only buys stock in companies that have agreed to certain ethical principles. Last time I looked, that fund was doing just as well as the anything-goes fund Good luck with that. Wait, he didn't say he'd actually put his money where his mouth was, just that the fund he has the option of investing in is doing as well. Correct. Ethical business practice is not in conflict with good management and profitability.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #42 May 31, 2007 QuoteQuote.8% per year over 16 years is a lot of money lost. For that reason, it looks like they switched to active management this past November. You seem to be implying that actively managed funds are superior to index-linked funds over the long term, which is total nonesense. Nope. I noted that the index-minus approach (remove all the bad companies) failed badly, so they're throwing in the towel on that approach. I wouldn't take them as a active fund either but I'm more likely to invest in the Vice fund anyhow. Altria has been in my portfolio dating back to the 90s. If gun companies paid 4% dividends, I'd consider them too. The one weakness for indexes, aside from picking the wrong allocation, is that they only can go long on the market. There are methods for generating .5-1% of alpha on a consistent basis without incurring an inordinate increase in risk. But those are based on science, not gun slinging on the trading floor. The key is watching those fees. As a result passive ETFs still dominate my holdings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #43 May 31, 2007 I agree with you, i fpeople are being used as slaved that is dispacable and we should boycott any produce from such a supplier. But one hsould distinguish between slavery and low wage work. They ar enot the same at all. What seems like low wage work to us is not necessarily perceived the same way for others. As long we are agreed slavery should never be accepted , but the same does not ring true for low wage work then there is no debate here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #44 May 31, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote My 403b retirement plan has an option to invest in a fund that only buys stock in companies that have agreed to certain ethical principles. Last time I looked, that fund was doing just as well as the anything-goes fund Good luck with that. Wait, he didn't say he'd actually put his money where his mouth was, just that the fund he has the option of investing in is doing as well. Correct. Ethical business practice is not in conflict with good management and profitability. Now I'm confused, is this your justification for NOT putting your money in the ethical fund? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joedirt 0 #45 May 31, 2007 I'm somewhat confused too, but I think from these last few posts, everyone is in agreement, the most money made in mutual funds is in commissions. Every broker knows just beating the S&P 500 index is considered good, but they won't tell you to buy an index ETF. Without dividends they're all speculation to me anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #46 May 31, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote My 403b retirement plan has an option to invest in a fund that only buys stock in companies that have agreed to certain ethical principles. Last time I looked, that fund was doing just as well as the anything-goes fund Good luck with that. Wait, he didn't say he'd actually put his money where his mouth was, just that the fund he has the option of investing in is doing as well. Correct. Ethical business practice is not in conflict with good management and profitability. Now I'm confused, is this your justification for NOT putting your money in the ethical fund? No, its unjustification for not not investing in unethical companies.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richards 0 #47 May 31, 2007 QuoteBut one hsould distinguish between slavery and low wage work. They ar enot the same at all. What seems like low wage work to us is not necessarily perceived the same way for others. As long we are agreed slavery should never be accepted , but the same does not ring true for low wage work then there is no debate here. I guess there would be 2 questions to ask. 1. Did our trade with them worsen the situation? 2. Are we capitalizing on unnecessary hardship? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #48 June 1, 2007 First off, if youve studied any economics you will understand David Ricardo's Principle of Comparative Advantgae and understand that trade in theory benefits both parties. In practice look at economies that we trade with that use their low cost wages as their advantage; such as China, Thailand, india etc they have all improved their economic situation since, exactly as economic theory would predict. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richards 0 #49 June 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteFirst off, if youve studied any economics you will understand David Ricardo's Principle of Comparative Advantgae and understand that trade in theory benefits both parties. I have (although it has been awhile) and what I have seen is that while the ricardian model is great with sanitized textbook exercises, like most theories it does not always hold up as well in practice. I am all for trade with 3rd world countries. I just don't beleive that we have to accept grotesque human rights violations in the name of cheaper trade. This does not mean that I don't accept the comparative advantage argument or accept that even if we do better than them in the deal, that they are better off than they were before the deal. I am not pushing for a perfect world where all trade between 1st and 3rd world countries is perfectly equitable because I know that is not realistic. I just find that too often people will use the fact that we cannot change everything as an excuse to change nothing. QuoteIn practice look at economies that we trade with that use their low cost wages as their advantage; such as China, Thailand, india etc they have all improved their economic situation since, exactly as economic theory would predict. Agreed, but be carefull how we measure economic success. By some measures, China is doing better than Canada, yet if you look at the average standard of living it does not measure up. Some measures put Mexico not that far behind Canada yet to the best of my knowledge the minutemen have not had to put patrols out to stop millions of desperately poor canadians from sneaking across the border to work as illegal labour. I am not anti-trade (Most people find me to be too far to the right actually), nor do I expect an ideal world. I just don't think we have to always accept the status quo when it comes to ridiculously unfair trade, or human rights abuses. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KidWicked 0 #50 June 8, 2007 Quote The key is watching those fees. An index linked fund should have low fees by definition, so what should I be "watching"?? Vanguard rules all.Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
