It seems like you are suggesting the government can restrain speech and then, if the people disagree that the government, that they then can sue the government to allow it.
I don't want to live in the world you suggest.
This right here is why I am glad we have a constitution in the US and resist efforts to make it easier to change.
People can respect you as a person, but no I don't think people have to respect different viewpoints. I can respect that you have a lived experience that differs from mine and that your viewpoint is X, but I do balance that against my own views and speak my own truth as well.
If you think that you have to respect every viewpoint that differs, think of the viewpoints of the party you dislike. Think of any of their views. Do you respect their _view_ or do you respect the person and want to allow their speech while disagreeing with it?
Me? I think the best way to deal with speech I don't like is not filtering or censorship its more speech. Anytime I see an implication that someones view needs to be filtered I think "You first."
Don't be purposefully obtuse - its not helpful to anyone and just makes you look like a troll.
Germany did not want to produce oil/gas locally due to concerns about environmental impact. Instead, they decided to import it from Russia. With the Russia pipeline destroyed, they are now competing for these same 'dirty resources' on the global scale resulting in widespread suffering in the developing world.
If you are going to imply that you didn't understand this as the meaning of the statement, I think its pretty telling.
You seem to have become mistaken - I am talking about a companies fiduciary duty to shareholder and maximizing long term shareholder value. You are talking about popular sentiment.
... The 2022/2023 winter in Europe and the balkans should help solidify that in your mind. Germany lost its pipeline to Russia where it was sourcing its natural gas because they did not want to produce it locally. This directly caused them to start competing on the international scene for its gas.
Where do you think this 'surplus' of gas is coming from? Its not 'spare capacity' that was sitting around... its coming from poorer countries that can't compete for the same gas due to the price Germany is now willing to pay.
Consider Bangladesh and the political unrest because of the rising fuel prices. [1]. For gods sake, they had a nationwide power blackout that lasted 7 hours. Why? Because the gas supplies were being usurped by Europe. [2].
> Now with Russia-Ukraine war squeezing supply, the richer European nations are getting dibs on whatever is up for grabs. With winter and a cap on Russian fuel imports approaching, European buyers will look to stock up on even more LNG.
Maybe we disagree - but I would say that widespread starvation and energy blackouts impacting the populations of developing countries directly related to ESG policies is pretty damn bad. The road to hell is paved with good intentions - look down.
You know I never checked. I mean it seems obvious it would but I don’t recall seeing a study.
Honestly though a study like that may be banned from most research houses as it can fall into a bad spot. What happens if the study found it didn’t help. :/
I feel like the regulations here are good regardless. I don’t Want someone to be penalized specifically because of their race.
Let’s fast forward in financial regulation knowledge with a question perhaps.
Why do you think the sec had to require that directors and executives have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders? Why are executives fined and jailed when they violate this?
Those answers should explain why there is an incentive to not allow public investable companies to fuck with their investor money in a way that isn’t necessarily in their best interest. If they want to do that, you can invest in private companies that the mom and pop investor can’t get hoodwinked into.
Arguments aside, completely unrelated to substance, that’s a scary looking link. What were you trying to link to? I enjoy conversing about the substance of arguments but I’m not clicking that. Any help?
> If it's actually true that such a loan is riskier, then the bank acted correctly.
Oh my god. We are not going to speed run racial discrimination in lending products again. Once is enough for me. This is actually specifically illegal.
> "What are the U.S. fair lending laws? Fair lending laws in the United States prohibit lenders from discriminating based on specific protected classes (such as race, color, national origin, and religion) during any aspect of a credit transaction." [1]
You should know that an appeal to follow ESG practices is likely to be found illegal right?
I know references and facts arn't as fun as emotional pleas and comparing investing for financial growth to cancer... but lets try it anyway?
> in May, under the banner of promoting ESG, nearly 50% of Travelers Insurance shareholders asked the company to break the law. Full stop. Specifically, about 47% of its investors backed a shareholder proposal that would have caused the company to collect and consider race when writing insurance policies, in direct violation of state law. [1]
> “Our states will not idly stand for our pensioners’ retirements to be sacrificed for BlackRock’s climate agenda. [2]
> "As fiduciaries, trustees must act in ways that financially benefit the trust and its beneficiaries. Trustees who fail to do so are liable for damages to the beneficiaries, and may face additional legal penalties. The social and environmental goals involved in ESG investing create a greater potential for violations of fiduciary law by introducing motives for investment choices outside the traditional definition. Are trustees selecting ESG-focused mutual funds because they believe they are suitable investments, or do they merely hope to make the world a better place by deploying capital under their control according to socially pressured or personally held beliefs?" [4]
Of course, that doesn't stop well meaning fools from trying to change the definition of words to make what they are doing not illegal.
> As the landscape for investment changes, so too does the notion of fiduciary duty. The processes and approaches used to guide investment decisions have evolved over time in response to changes in the generally accepted understanding of market behavior. We are again at an inflection point. As the evidence and rationale behind addressing material and business related impacts of ESG factors in the investment process further develops and is increasingly accepted, so does our understanding of these factors through a fiduciary lens. [3]
I generally do not welcome things which make the investing landscape worst for the suburban investor. If I saw half the companies start a new youtube series called 'We snort half of our investors cash every monday!' I wouldnt laugh, I would be calling the sec.
I would like to see not the 'free market' dictate how it happens - I would like to see companies that harm their investors end with their ceo/cfos perp walked out and arrested.
I want to see companies remember they have a fiduciary duty to their investors.
I don't want to live in the world you suggest.
This right here is why I am glad we have a constitution in the US and resist efforts to make it easier to change.