Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Protest in west seattle, all welcome!
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 11, 2012 at 10:09 pm #754298
DBPMemberMcDonalds will get free publicity and you will bring out anti protesters that will go to McDonalds.
Yeah, right. It’s dandy publicity to have your brand associated with something awful. Just ask “Santorum.”
Or rather, Google it . . .
Â
Â
April 11, 2012 at 10:42 pm #754299
JanSParticipantoh, Bostonman…you and I both know that that can’t be the only thing. I realize it’s one thing, but..come on…being unethical is OK with you as long as it suits the bottom line?
the funny thing about this whole thread…no one has said when this supposed “protest” is supposed to be – not even a general idea…. It sure does make for good conversation, though, doesn’t it?
April 11, 2012 at 10:54 pm #754300
dobroParticipantSome people are able to “compartmentalize” better than others. For some, its only about money and zero about morality. Some rationalize. Bostonman thinks he’s making money off of lazy people so that makes it ok. Some people don’t really think much about ethics or rationalize that they don’t apply in their case.
Sad, really.
April 11, 2012 at 11:19 pm #754301
skeeterParticipantMy moral compass with respect to investing is similar to Bostonman’s. I don’t have a problem investing in a company that produces some societal or environmental problems. Unless I am specifically opposed to the product or service, I can take the good with the bad. Yes, McDonalds sells unhealthy food. And yes, people get obese. And cows die making that food. And enormous amounts of garbage are produced. And so on. That’s the bad.
However… there is good too. McDonalds produces a lot of good. How? Well… jobs, taxes, and investment returns jump into my head first. McDonalds employs millions of people. Are these high paying jobs? Only a few. But a lower paying job is better than no job. McDonalds pays billions of dollars in taxes through federal income tax, state income tax, property tax, social security tax, and so on. This funds all the programs that we citizens enjoy. And call me selfish, but I only want to work 40 years. That means I need to find ways to grow my money. I want to give McDonalds a dollar and have them give me back three dollars 15 or 20 years from now. Otherwise I cannot retire. McDonalds is a good steward of my investment.
April 11, 2012 at 11:22 pm #754302
DBPMemberI’m not one to moralize* but . . . isn’t “ethics-free investing” one of the main causes of the last economic crisis?
 Ebbers . . .
Â
  Lay . . .
Â
   Madoff . . .
Â
    Mastro . . .
Â
Ring any bells?
* ;-)
April 11, 2012 at 11:29 pm #754303
DBPMemberskeeter, you’ve been doing a great job of presenting the “other side” — and I’m not implying that you, personally, are unethical for investing in McDonalds. But let me ask you this:
If you could invest your nest egg in a company that sells healthy food at a good price, but it meant taking a 5-10% cut on returns as compared to McDonalds, would you do it?
April 11, 2012 at 11:38 pm #754304
JiggersMemberI loved the Danny Devito movie Other People’s Money.
April 12, 2012 at 12:21 am #754305
skeeterParticipantDBP that’s a good question (#31.)
It’s a little difficult to answer because (a) I diversify, which means I’d probably buy both companies and (b) there is no scenario in which I could know the future stock price or dividend payout of either company.
But… if, for some reason, I knew with certainty that McDonalds would have the better return, I would invest in McDonalds. But I’d be a customer of the healthy store. I don’t see it as a contradiction. McDonalds is not to blame for unhealthy food. McDonalds customers are to blame. McDonalds is selling what people want to buy.
April 12, 2012 at 1:11 am #754306
DBPMemberThank you, skeeter.
And again, I want to say as strongly as possible that I think you’re a moral and good person, and that I’m not questioning your ethics. But . . . by the logic below . . .
McDonalds is not to blame for unhealthy food. McDonalds customers are to blame. McDonalds is selling what people want to buy.
—couldn’t you also say that crack cocaine dealers are not to blame for the problems associated with crack? That they’re only selling something that people want to buy?
April 12, 2012 at 1:15 am #754307
JiggersMemberSupply in demand?
April 12, 2012 at 3:03 am #754308
JoBParticipantcjboffoli..
very well stated..
skeeter..
last time i looked.. the folks who make ethics an important part of their investment portfolio were also doing very well financially..
it turns out the investing in companies that actually produce great products that are good for you and the environment pays off.
imagine that.
sorry i am too tired to go look up the fund name for you..
maybe someone else will
April 12, 2012 at 4:10 pm #754309
skeeterParticipantDBP – #34
There are, in my mind, two primary differences between a crack dealer and McDonalds. First, a crack dealer is breaking the law. McDonalds is not. The crack dealer is creating an extreme burden on society by breaking the law – police, violence, jail costs, etc. Second, crack is a highly addictive substance. Fatty foods are addictive too, I suppose, but many people are able to limit their consumption of fatty foods and stay healthy. Few are able to use crack on an infrequent and responsible basis.
But… if crack was legal, then yes, I would say that the dealers would not be to blame – the customers would. As it is now, though, I think crack dealers are partially to blame for crack problems because they help the customer break the law.
I think a more valid comparison would be stores that sell cigarettes. I don’t blame Safeway, Costco, and 7Eleven for people who die of lung cancer from smoking. I blame the customers for smoking. I continue to shop at Safeway and Costco even though I believe cigarettes are a poison and using cigarettes is immoral. That’s why I continue to invest in McDonalds and occasionally eat there as well. McDonalds offers a product that people want and enjoy.
Side note to DBP – I understand you’re not questioning my ethics. Thanks for the kind words (post #34.) No hard feelings at all. I appreciate your thoughts and I enjoy our pleasant exchange. I think we’re both aware that people of good conscience often come to different conclusions. I think you’re a good person too.
April 12, 2012 at 4:20 pm #754310
skeeterParticipantJoB – #36,
You are absolutely correct. Ethical companies, in the long run, always always always produce better returns than unethical companies.
The problem is finding ethical companies.
Apple uses slave labor.
Boeing produces weapons.
Starbucks sells an addictive product.
McDonalds kills cows.
Ford sells products that create greenhouse gasses.
Johnson and Johnson makes medicines that people without insurance can’t afford.
In my opinion, McDonalds is an ethical company. They do not attempt to trick or mislead their customers, employees, or shareholders. They do not sell a product that if used responsibly creates a danger for their customers or society at large.
April 12, 2012 at 4:31 pm #754311
casabobaMemberYou may find this ” 2011 Ethical Companies” link useful. McDonald’s was on the list several years ago but was displaced.
April 12, 2012 at 4:41 pm #754312
DBPMemberGood responses skeeter. I’m somewhat persuaded.
Perhaps it comes down to a question of whether the company/product in question does mostly good or mostly bad.
When it comes to cigarettes and Costco, for example, you could argue that Costco is mostly good, because cigarette sales form only a small part of the store’s revenue. Moreover, to counteract the harm it does by selling cigarettes, Costco also sells some healthy food, exercise equipment, and so on.
Presumably you, as an ethical investor opposed to cigarettes, would decline to invest in Costco if cigarettes were all they sold.
We can differ about the impact of McDonalds on society. You say they produce a generally good and safe product, and while acknowledging that that product is sometimes abused, you still feel McDonald’s stock is an ethical buy.
I disagree with you about the fundamental nature of McDonalds — and yes, I do eat there sometimes too, when I’m desperate. But as you say, people of good conscience can come to different conclusions.
April 12, 2012 at 6:25 pm #754313
JiggersMemberMcDonalds is on the borderline of being unethical and it is dangerous to your health. They do know how to trick you(the consumer) and get away with it because it is known as capitalism. It is your choice to purchase one of their products if you want to. It’s the American way. They sell a less desirable product and charge you immensely for it.
April 12, 2012 at 6:40 pm #754314
JoBParticipantskeeter..
none of those companies would every appear on my list of ethical companies..
i even have reservations about google with their do no harm philosophy…
i have invested in mircro-lending in third world countries..
and similar investments where i not only get a good return..
but a bonus bang for my buck in helping out…
I am a very old school savvy shopper ;->
April 12, 2012 at 7:11 pm #754315
HMC RichParticipantWhat would you think if Mickey D’s sold the McCig. Then they would really be unethical, don’t you think?
April 12, 2012 at 7:22 pm #754316
HMC RichParticipantOn the other hand, are they going to protest the Ronald McDonald Houses which help families all over the world? Which many are built to Green standards? Which is one of the top 100 charities. Wiki…
Protest as you wish, but there are consequences to everything. Should we ban legumes because they cause excess emissions from humans?
I grew up in some rural areas so you might understand a bit better where I am coming from. The mom and pop farmer/rancher was not always for the giant corporate farms but I never saw a farmer not take a government subsidy when offered either.
April 12, 2012 at 7:22 pm #754317
JiggersMemberI can never eat enough of their McNuggetts so there you go..
April 12, 2012 at 7:32 pm #754318
skeeterParticipantI don’t think it would be unethical to invest in a company that sold cigarettes. That’s why I’m okay with Costco, Safeway, etc.
If McDonalds sold cigarettes it would not change my opinion. I would still invest in them.
DBP raises an interesting question. Let’s say a store sold ONLY cigarettes. Would I invest in them? Probably not. Almost definitely not, actually. I’m not saying it would be unethical. I just wouldn’t be interested in my money going to that enterprise.
I will say this about Costco. They don’t seem to advertise cigarettes. They are out of view, too. If you have to sell them, that’s probably the most responsible way.
April 12, 2012 at 7:33 pm #754319
skeeterParticipantJiggers (#40) how is McDonalds tricking the customer?
April 12, 2012 at 7:48 pm #754320
BostonmanMemberTo piggyback of Skeeters post 45 a company who sold nothing but cigarettes like would have little room for growth which drives private investment.
Sorry I have been away working. McDonalds is no more to blame for how cows are raised and slaughtered than Apple is for how China treats the workers in its plants. McDonalds is not unethical in what they do in my opinion. They provide a product and service people want and that is the basis of economics.
You don’t have to like them but labeling them unethical is way to broad a brush to paint them with.
April 12, 2012 at 8:54 pm #754321
JiggersMemberskeeter..Haven’t you seen their commercials and how good their meals look only to go in and buy them and be dissapointed. That’s trickery 101.
April 12, 2012 at 9:10 pm #754322
skeeterParticipantHa ha. Jiggers, you do have a point. Never looks as good as the commercial!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.