[Politics] Ethical Investment

[davywavy]

The latest buzz term in investment is ethical investing. I first encountered this as a concept about fifteen years ago whilst talking to someone about their investment portfolio and having them tell me about how they wouldn't put thier money into things that they disagreed with, like weapons manufacturers and so forth. However, as time has gone on ethical investment has gone from being a personal decision like that was to being big business - I doubt any major financial institution now doesn't offer ethical investment opportunities, from Green Funds to full-on Ethical investment right through to the slightly off-centre Blue fund for US Democrats.

You might have seen the news the other day regarding the ongoing fallout of the recent 'cash for peerages' scandal-ette which is that whilst the Conservative Party appears to have had a bumper few months and cleared it's outstanding cashflow shortage though donations, the Labour Party is still some £12m in debt. As the Guardian noted on December 17th, "More than £20m in debt, if Labour were a company, the party would now be calling in the receivers."
Whilst an interesting question would be what the constitional implications are if the ruling party of the day were to declare bankruptcy, this won't happen - Labour will fight back out of it's financial black hole through a mix of donations and loans. The difference is that now loans must be declared and charged at commercial rates, and with the recent hike in interest rates, commercial rates are about 7.5%.

And it's this that gave me my latest cracking wheeze. With commercial interest rates of 7.5%, a £10,000 loan over a 5-year term will carry about £50-60 per month in interest as well as payments to reduce capital. With this in mind, I'll be setting up a fund whose investment strategy will be to lend money to the Labour party because, when you think about it, there's no more ethical investment you can make. Every £10,000 lent to Labour will take nigh £3-4000 out of their coffers which otherwise they would waste on haircuts for Cherie, pies for Prescott and fighting elections - none of which I think are things anyone would really want to encourage them to do.
Thus the more money I lend to Labour, the higher my return and the less money the Labour party has to actually spend. Indeed, if I lend the party enough money it will actually put them out of business altogether, and I doubt anyone can think of a more decent, ethical way of spending your money than the destruction of the Labour Party.

I'm planning on calling this the Bankrupt The Labour Party Mutual Benefical and Friendly Society and shall be seeking investors.
The BTLPMB&S. It's good for the planet, it's good for the country, and it's good for you. Who's in?

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

An amusing notion, but you won't get your money back. Nulabour doesn't produce any value, and so has no prospect of repaying your principle plus interest. What you propose (get them in hock to you, them pull out the rug) is the legal equivalent of assassinating the whole bloody lot, and good riddance.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

In teh short term it s winner - they'll have to raise money from the unions to pay me back my loans and interest. This will have the effect of taking money out of the pockets of the unions and putting it into mine, which would reverse usual Labour policy.

[(Anonymous)]

I think Bliar et al would get short shrift if they went cap in hand to the TUC. They'd be handed a list of policies to implement in exchange for the cash which would bring ruin upon us all if they were spineless enough to capitulate...

Having reasoned it through, your idea is a turkey.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

...and given that all unions' money come directly from working people, you'd basically be using this as a means of taking money from people poorer than you. I can see how that might be attractive to you ;-)

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

You say that, but it seems that Labour's plan to get themselves of the hoel they've dug is to...go cap in hand to the unions.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

Actually, the policies agreed by the TUC would improve the lives of the majority of people in this country. They just wouldn't benefit the already-rich.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Poorer than me? I assume you don't look at the salaries being paid on the Guardian Public Sector jobs pages then?
if there's one thing that public sector workers aren't, these days, It's poorer than me.
Remember I still qualify for the definition of poverty.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

I have looked at those salaries (jealously) but union membership is hardly exclusive to the public sector, and the biggest Labour-affiliated unions (i.e. the T&G, the GMB and Amicus) are all primarily blue-collar. You, like me, might well qualify for the Oxfam definition of poverty but you aren't (so far as I'm aware) on the National Minimum Wage...

[(Anonymous)]

Their fair weather plutocrat pals deserting them having plundered the nation of it's industrial heritage eh? Who would've seen that coming? Bit late for them to rediscover their working class foundation, now there isn't a working class any more. Go Blair!

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

This is where I shake my head and wonder about the blue-collar unions - given that the 50%+ corporation tax regime of the 70's was a great contributor of blue-collar manufacturing work moving overseas, I simply cannot understand why they'd continue to stump up to a political philosophy which is anathema to their members.

[(Anonymous)]

Even now, our high corporation tax rate makes it economical for foreign shells to own British assets. Companies declare their profits where taxes are low.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

You've gotta understand that, in philosophy, the traditional union model is fine as long as it's applied globally. Otherwise, as you rightly say, economic globalisation basically penalises both Governments and workers for having people-friendly policies.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Alas, true. Apparently HSBC have told Brown that if their tax percentage goes up any further then they're going to shift their entire city operation to Zurich, and that's worth £1.5bn per year to the exchequer.
If you pay people to do stuff then they'll do it, and effectively tax rates are a means of paying organisations to do business in your territory. High taxes only hurt the little organisations, because the big operations can just leave.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

The vast majority of philosophies are fine so long as they're applied globally. However, no philosophy can or will ever be. What this means is that philosophies which actively penalise people are to be avoided.
Anti-globalisation, for example, penalises Vietnamese peasants who might want to earn 5 time the average national wage by telling them they're not allowed to.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree in part, however, if we create a high value (well educated, motivated, & law abiding) workforce then we have something besides strong backs & weak labour protection to offer the mobile corporation.
Democracy works best when both government & electorate have bargaining chips, and it's impressive how fast Nulabour has devalued the electorate.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

...whereas globalisation penalises Vietnamese peasants for, well, being Vietnamese peasants, by valuing their labour at a much reduced rate to working-class Americans, for example. It's institutionalised racism and colonialism all in one.

The lesson: everything's a bit shit, really.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

Oh, for sure, but as you say, Labour have done a bang-up job of screwing up education and healthcare, as well as general welfare. Not that the Tories would have been better, but then I've never voted for either of those two parties, so I guess that's something.

[(Anonymous)]

Great how the Nulabour ruling class realise this & either arrange to win the postcode lottery, securing good education for their kids, or go the whole hog & pay for it.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

This we look at overall benefits. The value of a working class american is directly linked to costs of living; it simply isn't economic for someone to go to work within that ecoonomy below a certain point - that point is lower in Vietnam. The advantage to the company in shifting production overseas and away from their core markets is that it is economic due to lower labour costs, despite increased transportation costs taking finished materials back to their core market. The advantage to the labourer is that their lower labour costs are still 5 times the average national wage. Demanding that companies pay wage parity worldwide is effectively a call for companies to stop shifting productionoverseas and away from their core markets as there ceases to be any benefit for them to do so.

I understand why unions support ideas like demanding higher wages overseas; it's certainly an excellent piece of protectionism for their home members as it stops manufacturing leaving home markets. However, it's actively detrimental for the people who actually want and need the work overseas.
But still, Vietnamese peasants like standing in paddy fields so best leave them there and protect ourselves first.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

Well, they can't have anything less than the best for their kids, can they? *wry grin*

[(Anonymous)]

Great how the Nulabour ruling class realise this & either arrange to win the postcode lottery, securing good education for their kids, or go the whole hog & pay for it.
About 10 years ago I met one of Boatengs aides on a train, & gave him an earful about how comprehensive education excludes the able poor from good education, and he confided to me that Labour knew this, but Comprehensive education is a sacred cow, and it's better to sacrifce the future welfare of thousands rather than admit they were wrong.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

And slavery was a great job opportunity for all those Africans, yeah? ;-)

I think the point is that, from an egalitarian point of view, the point at which it becomes economical to work ought to be the same world-wide, because anything else is to say that it's OK for people in Place X to live in worse conditions than those in Place Y.

You can take wages outta competition without removing competition; indeed, it might actually promote more local industries to spring up in places like Vietnam as it becomes more economical to produce the consumer goods there than it would be to import them. So, basically, these policies provide opportunities for entrepreneurs, and you can't say fairer than that...*grin*

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

That's terrifying, but there is another way; invest more (and differently) in primary and secondary education. We could use the £20bn we're planning to spend on Trident replacement, for example.

If you raised the standard of Comprehensive education then everyone wins...

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I actually don't understand the third paragraph. How can it be more economical for Vietnamese entrepreneurs to make stuff in Vietnam and ship it to (say) the US than it is for companies in the US to make stuff there, assuming that labour costs are equal in both countries?
The transportation costs from Vietnam to the US would make it less cost effective?

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

As an addition, appoint Gordon 'as intelligent and ugly as an angler fish/crocodile hybrid living in a Scottish marsh' Brown as Labour's accountant.

Then start placing bets.