ESG Takes A Hit

[Nationalist]

Well well well...

Quote

The U.S. Senate voted 50-46 to adopt a resolution to overturn a Labor Department rule making it easier for fund managers to consider environmental, social and corporate governance, or ESG, issues for investments and shareholder rights decisions, such as through proxy voting.

Two Democratic senators, Joe Manchin and Jon Tester, voted with Republicans.

https://www.reuters.com/business/us-senate-poised-consider-blocking-biden-esg-investment-rule-2023-03-01/

Sooo...Joe's ESG crap has been shot down in flames. Joe will veto the decision of course. That will then be on him alone.

Thoughts?

[Deluge]

I think it's time to wipe wokeness off the face of the map. 

[Michael Hardner]

"They look lovingly into the eyes of their captors"

"Their inability to understand the world is soothed by the strong voice of the big man telling them all will be well"

[herbie]

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

They look lovingly into the eyes of their captors"

"Their inability to understand the world is soothed by the strong voice of the big man telling them all will be well"

well said.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Joe will veto the decision of course.

Good for Joe.  Freedom!

[Rebound]

Why shouldn’t fund managers be permitted to do what they want?

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Good for Joe.  Freedom!

Freedom...to control the investment markets?

[Infidel Dog]

The problem is a lot of the money being played with here by the globalist woke isn't actually the money managers' money. Much of it is pension money and such. It's from investments.  

I think I heard somewhere that Black Rock, I think it was had to pull back from ESG because investors were withdrawing funds.

Edited March 3, 2023 by Infidel Dog

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Freedom...to control the investment markets?

Apparently it's optional.  I'm pro-choice.

[Infidel Dog]

Me too. I'm pro-choice. Except I'm not Bernie Madoff pro-choice. ESG is a fraud. It's not serving investors. It's ultimate destination is to fleece them to pay for Globalist scams on the hopeful route to ultimate power.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Me too. I'm pro-choice. Except I'm not Bernie Madoff pro-choice. ESG is a fraud. It's not serving investors. It's ultimate destination is to fleece them to pay for Globalist scams on the hopeful route to ultimate power.

Yeah, okay.  They should all end up in jail, then, like Madoff.

If that's the case, of course.

[Infidel Dog]

I know I wouldn't expect to get rich investing in Equity, Social change, and Biden governance.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

I know I wouldn't expect to get rich investing in Equity, Social change, and Biden governance.

If you figure out how to get rich, post it on here, and we can all get rich.

[Infidel Dog]

Well I already gave you my first suggestion.

Don't invest in Equity, Social Change, and Biden Governance.

You don't appear to like that one. Feel free to ignore it then.

 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Well I already gave you my first suggestion.

Don't invest in Equity, Social Change, and Biden Governance.

You don't appear to like that one. Feel free to ignore it then.

 

So there is a choice then?  Freedom!

[Infidel Dog]

Absolutely. Choose to be as silly as you want. Mortgage your home if you like. But when the money's all gone and you don't actually have any of this equity you were promised or for that matter even a pension maybe you'll agree that the crooks that put you in that position didn't deserve so much choice. 

Like I said I'm not for Bernie Madoff style choice.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Me too. I'm pro-choice. Except I'm not Bernie Madoff pro-choice. ESG is a fraud. It's not serving investors. It's ultimate destination is to fleece them to pay for Globalist scams on the hopeful route to ultimate power.

IF that were true, you HAVE the CHOICE to invest elsewhere,

SOME people UNDERSTAND that their PROFIT also depends ON MORE than the short term money in their pocket.

Edited March 3, 2023 by robosmith

[Infidel Dog]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

IF that were true, you HAVE the CHOICE to invest elsewhere,

Why? Did somebody say you didn't?

As I understand it that's one of the problems with ESG. People and organizations can pull their investments. I think money managers and others in on ESG want a monopoly so that you have no place to go but them.

[Nationalist]

8 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Apparently it's optional.  I'm pro-choice.

OK.

Question: Can you name an environmental or social government policy that's had a positive effect on the economy?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

OK.

Question: Can you name an environmental or social government policy that's had a positive effect on the economy?

You guys don't know what optional means, do you?

It's okay.  It's a big word.

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

OK.

Question: Can you name an environmental or social government policy that's had a positive effect on the economy?

The implication in this question is "no," but that seems incredibly short sighted. Corporate environmental impact is one of the classic externalities. Ex: A tannery dumps waste into a creek and destroys business and residential downstream. Voluntary or involuntary (legally imposed) prohibition of such dumping is good for the economy.

Short-term inconveniences in exchange for long-term sustainability are very often good for the economy. 

And though less "smack you in the face" obvious, the S and G components work the same way. Workers rights-> living wages->building of the middle class is very good for the economy. 

Not that the economy is the end-all-be-all of life anyway.

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

You guys don't know what optional means, do you?

It's okay.  It's a big word.

So is rational. But we forgive you your shallowness.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

The implication in this question is "no," but that seems incredibly short sighted. Corporate environmental impact is one of the classic externalities. Ex: A tannery dumps waste into a creek and destroys business and residential downstream. Voluntary or involuntary (legally imposed) prohibition of such dumping is good for the economy.

Short-term inconveniences in exchange for long-term sustainability are very often good for the economy. 

And though less "smack you in the face" obvious, the S and G components work the same way. Workers rights-> living wages->building of the middle class is very good for the economy. 

Not that the economy is the end-all-be-all of life anyway.

OK you have a point there. However in this case, governmental meddling in the way people invest their money is going to produce shoddy results. Hell its already producing shoddy results.

[robosmith]

32 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

OK you have a point there. However in this case, governmental meddling in the way people invest their money is going to produce shoddy results. Hell its already producing shoddy results.

IF you had an example of ^this,  you might post it. But you probably do not.

[reason10]

On 3/2/2023 at 10:17 AM, Nationalist said:

Well well well...

Sooo...Joe's ESG crap has been shot down in flames. Joe will veto the decision of course. That will then be on him alone.

Thoughts?

Not a new idea. Around the late 80s, early 90s, Rush Limbaugh informed us about a Jesse Jackson plan to raid pension funds to pay for infrastructure spending. Rush said that pension funds were the only TRUE wealth that existed and was otherwise protected.

And these SAME Democrats who would not allow private Social SEcurity accounts (where each worker could actually INVEST his own FICA) have no problem with a money grab based on Woke policies.