Do you have a pension?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The implicit claim in your question, is that it's not possible to invest in companies, that don't do illegal things - i.e. either that such companies don't exist, or that it's not practical to research for them, or such.

Instead of trying to flip the burden of proof with that question - state the implicit claim in the question, explicitly, and actually argue it.

If you're going to make an implicit claim like that, have the balls to state it explicitly, and to actually own the burden of proof for backing it up.


Failing that, you and others have no argument against avoiding investing in unethical companies (with knowingly illegal acts, being a one good starting measure of this).

mahoganygas wrote: »

KomradeBishop, in your opinion, where should people invest their money?

As I've been explaining amply - and I'm going to continue repeatedly explaining this again, as many times as needed... - that question is a red herring, and posters are trying to use that question, to push the implied claim, that (for whatever reason) avoiding investments in unethical companies is either impossible or impractical or otherwise undoable.

If you want to make that implicit claim, make it explicitly and accept that the burden of proof lies on you - don't expect me, to accept a question which you would rhetorically use to try and flip the burden of proof for that on to me.

This post has been deleted.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You're dodging. Again.

If you want to claim I am dodging, you need to explain exactly why I should answer the question in the first place: How, exactly, is the question relevant to arguments I have made - and not just a red herring?

What exactly does answering (or not answering...) the question imply?

If that implication, has anything to do with avoiding unethical companies being impractical or such - then the burden of proof lies with the person asking the question, does it not?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Are you claiming that it's hypocritical for me, to not provide examples of ethical companies?

If that's what you're claiming - and posters are at pains to avoid actually stating what they are trying to claim, with the question... - then that's a fallacious argument, both because accusations of hypocrisy are a 'tu quoque' fallacy, and because that actually fails to show any hypocrisy as well.

The only possible way it could be hypocritical for me to criticize investing in unethical companies, is if I myself invest in them - which I don't...

The only other possible way my criticism could be unreasonable, is if it's not possible, or impractical to avoid investing in unethical companies - except if people are making that argument implicitly, it's up to them, to accept the burden of proof and to back it...


Otherwise, there is no reason for me to answer that question - I see that posters intend to use it for rhetorical purposes, so I'm not going to answer, that gives me an extremely good reason to not answer it - and posters have failed to explain how me not answering it, shows any kind of problem with my arguments.

This post has been deleted.

bluewolf wrote: »

So you don't have any examples and you're dodging then

And here you had a perfect chance to convert people and their investments like

Can you explain exactly how me refusing to provide an example of an ethical company, negatively affects my arguments?

Pick one:
1: Are you claiming that it shows, that there are no ethical companies?
2: Are you claiming that it shows, that it's impractical to find ethical companies?
3: Are you claiming that it shows hypocrisy?


I'm happy to make this discussion exclusively about exposing, how people are using that question in a deliberately dishonest way - for rhetorical purposes - and to explain in greater and greater detail, exactly how people are knowingly using the question in that way.

I've explicitly stated that I'm not going to answer it, many times now, so people have no other explanation for putting it forward to me again and again, if it was not for rhetorical purposes...

valoren wrote: »

Waiting for everything to be perfect can make you miss out on perfectly satisfactory opportunities. Paralysis by analysis in effect.

No matter how dig you deep, you will, in all probability find something unsavoury about a company. Where that information falls within your own moral compass is individual to each and every investor.

For example, should an investor in Colgate Palmolive sell their shares as a member of the board of directors was recently charged with cocaine possession? Should an investor in a fund with Colgate holdings in the portfolio sell their holding?

Ethics are entirely subjective so it follows that ethical investing is also entirely subjective.

Well, I set as one example benchmark, avoiding companies knowingly committing illegal acts - that's not subjective.

Posters aren't even trying to 'find the level for setting the bar' as far as ethical standards go (n.b. not an invitation to redirect discussion into where to set the bar) - posters seem to be trying to say, that there should be no ethical standard/bar.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The only other possible way my criticism could be unreasonable, is if it's not possible, or impractical to avoid investing in unethical companies - except if people are making that argument implicitly, it's up to them, to accept the burden of proof and to back it...

I think your core point is valid. Each person has their own set of ethics/morals, and they should at the very least consider whether the money they invest is working actively against the positions he/she has adopted in life.

However, I think you've gone further than that. Your views on funding retirement would seem to be far to the left of the majority, to the extent that I wonder if you're playing devil's advocate.

You're not willing to give examples of good ethical investments. In a way I can understand that; I wouldn't answer the question, because it would provide a window on my own ethics, and my ethics are personal; I wouldn't hold them up to the good citizens of Boards for ridicule.

One thing we might agree on is that investment managers are often rubbish. How can we assume the average person would do any better at picking stocks? However, the solution to that is to invest in passive funds that track an index. By its nature, you probably don't know what it's investing in, and it may change from day to day.

Thinking out loud - don't countries like Germany tax your pay in order to provide you a pension when you retire? And it's a proper pension, with benefits dependentant on what you pay in (not like here, where the person who pays PRSI for 40 years ends up the same as somebody who never paid a cent)? What does the German state do with the contributions? I assume they invest it somewhere to actually fund the pensions.