NationStates Jolt Archive

That's what it seems like to me anyway. Read their sales pitch (http://www.freeenterpriseactionfund.com/about.html).
Why invest in the Free Enterprise Action Fund? Left-wing social and political activists are harnessing the power, resources and influence of publicly-owned corporations to advance their social and political agendas. (1) Frustrated by their failure to advance their agendas in the public political process, these activists use capitalism against capitalism under the guise of “corporate social responsibility” and “socially responsible investing.” (2) Their movement threatens shareholder value and the American system of free enterprise.

Leveraging its status as an institutional shareholder in hundreds of America’s largest companies, the Fund aims to defend free enterprise from the Left’s use of capitalism against capitalism.
They certainly have an odd definition of democracy. Seeing as what these activists are doing is using the power of the market to effect change, it seems to me that these guys are just pissy that the activists are beating them at their own game.

Look at some of the stuff they're bitching about:
What is the harm? Activist attacks on corporations may have adverse consequences extending far beyond negative financial impact on shareholder value.

* Circumventing democracy. Our traditional political process can be circumvented and undermined when corporate executives make public policy via private arrangements with activists.
So when corporate executives make public policy any other time, it's okay? It's only when activists get involved that it's bad?
* Eliminating business as a defender of free enterprise. Corporations may be intimidated from participating in public policy debates and are discouraged from funding free market public policy organizations.
But not stopped--yeah, that's a threat to democracy, especially considering that these guys would love to shut activists up.

* Blocking economic development. Developing nations, which could be a significant part in our future economic growth, are blocked from access to the financial resources they need to develop economically.
How? In the world of finance, socially aware and concerned companies are still well in the minority.

I swear, these are the whiniest people on earth. They're worse than right-wing Christians.

They obviously suffer from CPC, otherwise known as Capitalist Persecution Complex, (not to be confused with Christian Persecution Complex, a similar disorder).

Some symptoms include:
-a belief in monolithic entities, such as the mainstream media conspiracy (CPC sufferers often use the term MSM), and the liberal lying leftist conspiracy (LLL for short).
-overuse of abbreviations: see above.
-a belief that their power base is constantly under attack. This delusion persists even if they have clear majorities in Congress, the Senate, the military, and the Supreme Court.
-pathological resistance to change. This is not to be confused with conservative values, a different disorder which makes the victim susceptible to Conservative Persecution Complex.

Whatever. What's kind of return can I expect on my investment?

Whatever. What's kind of return can I expect on my investment?
Dictatorship, slavery and a ruined world...I think I'd prefer a $10 dividend.

Whatever. What's kind of return can I expect on my investment?
Probably pretty good. Of course, these funds specializing in socially aware and responsible companies are pulling down pretty good returns as well. A good chunk of my 403(b) goes into them every month, and I'm not complaining.

What's their energy exposure?

What's their energy exposure?
You got me--they seem to have a good bit of info on their website however (not that I'd understand half of it).

They've got Exxon Mobil. Other than that they hav a whole bunch of stocks that are going to take a nosedive at the first sight of a hurricane in the GOM or an exploding camel near Gwahar in Saudi Arabia.

Probably pretty good. Of course, these funds specializing in socially aware and responsible companies are pulling down pretty good returns as well. A good chunk of my 403(b) goes into them every month, and I'm not complaining.

Clean energy and envrionmental stocks are going to take off in the next few years, so socially conscious funds will be able to do very well to say nothing of the other sectors they invest in. Also, the upswing in large caps and tech (Dow 11,600 today!) provides more support since many of the socially responsible companies also fall in to those categories.

Personnally, I've been experimenting (with online money, of course) with an alternative energy/tech portfolio and it's doing quite well...about a $9,000 return since late April. Socially responsible companies are usually also good investments, since the companies that pollute the least and treat their workers and customers the best often make the newest products and are leaders in their emerging fields.

Of course, the social benefits of these companies are nothing to dismiss...even better, they're not just motivated by beliefs, intellectual honesty, environmental consciousness or social activism but they can actually make solid money.

Clean energy and envrionmental stocks are going to take off in the next few years, so socially conscious funds will be able to do very well to say nothing of the other sectors they invest in. Also, the upswing in large caps and tech (Dow 11,600 today!) provides more support since many of the socially responsible companies also fall in to those categories.

Personnally, I've been experimenting (with online money, of course) with an alternative energy/tech portfolio and it's doing quite well...about a $9,000 return since late April. Socially responsible companies are usually also good investments, since the companies that pollute the least and treat their workers and customers the best often make the newest products and are leaders in their emerging fields.

Of course, the social benefits of these companies are nothing to dismiss...even better, they're not just motivated by beliefs, intellectual honesty, environmental consciousness or social activism but they can actually make solid money.This month's Wired has a series of articles about green tech and Al Gore, and one of them focuses was on how Gore has not only continued to preach the global warming issue, but how he's shown investors that they can make lots of money by going green. It was a good piece.

What's their energy exposure?

You mean like Gamma Rays? You wouldn't like me when I'm investing.

This month's Wired has a series of articles about green tech and Al Gore, and one fo the focuses was on how Gore has not only continued to preach the global warming issue, but how he's shown investors that they can make lots of money by going green. It was a good piece.

I'll have to read it. I'm guessing it can be found on their website, so I'll check it out.
Al Gore does know a lot about global warming and green technology (technology in general is more accurate). Anyone who supports alternative, clean energy and responsible economic development is pretty much on the same side as I am. As surprising as it might be to some people, I actually like Gore and agree with him on a lot of issues.

I'll have to read it. I'm guessing it can be found on their website, so I'll check it out.
Al Gore does know a lot about global warming and green technology (technology in general is more accurate). Anyone who supports alternative, clean energy and responsible economic development is pretty much on the same side as I am. As surprising as it might be to some people, I actually like Gore and agree with him on a lot of issues.
There's a lot of speculation that he's going to use his film to jumpstart a presidential campaign for 2008. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat in the general, and he'd be in my top three in the primaries.

There's a lot of speculation that he's going to use his film to jumpstart a presidential campaign for 2008. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat in the general, and he'd be in my top three in the primaries.

Yes, but I'm scared they'll jump start Dick Cherny and give him a heartbeat.

There's a lot of speculation that he's going to use his film to jumpstart a presidential campaign for 2008. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat in the general, and he'd be in my top three in the primaries.

I'd actually vote for him as well; he's extremely pro free-trade, but also supports strong environmental regulations and labor protections in poor nations which really puts his views close to mine on that issue. He also shares a lot of the same views as I do on many issues, especially social ones.

His economic policy is responsible and his social policy is comfortably liberal and quite free, so he would pretty much get my support in 2008 barring some miracle Republican candidate. Foreign policy is also a big plus; the Clinton-Gore years produced some serious gains in foreign policy and peace agreements, and since Gore was part of that process and policy it would bode well for his ability to deal with the foreign policy of 2008 and beyond.

Since when has business been interested in defending "free market" policies? Capitalist, maybe, but if markets can be manipulated in their favor they have no problem. The typical juxtaposition of "big government vs. big business" tends to miss the point.

I have my doubts about the efficacy of the methods condemned by this organization, but at least they're making some progress, and that is positive.

Anyone who supports alternative, clean energy and responsible economic development is pretty much on the same side as I am.

What is "responsible economic development"?

I'd actually vote for him as well; he's extremely pro free-trade, but also supports strong environmental regulations and labor protections in poor nations which really puts his views close to mine on that issue. He also shares a lot of the same views as I do on many issues, especially social ones.

His economic policy is responsible and his social policy is comfortably liberal and quite free, so he would pretty much get my support in 2008 barring some miracle Republican candidate. Foreign policy is also a big plus; the Clinton-Gore years produced some serious gains in foreign policy and peace agreements, and since Gore was part of that process and policy it would bode well for his ability to deal with the foreign policy of 2008 and beyond.
And yet to hear most of the blowhards talk about him, you'd swear Gore was the second coming of Chairman Mao.

I think this could well end up with people going to jail. They claim the ticker symbol is ACE, but mutual fund tickers are five letters, i.e. FBGRX (which I like). The only ACE I can find quoted in the US is a large Insurance dealy. (17+ billion in assets). Toronton has another ACE, but that is open to more than just US investors.

Also, this thing also only has 4.3 million in assets, which makes it a penny stock.

Honestly, I think it's just a bunch of idiots with a website, hoping to capitilize on stupid people. I can't find any SEC stuff for it either (I didn't look to hard tho), so your probably fucked if you send them any money. Basically I think it's a scam.

(Not to mention the fact that all their allegedstock holdings are in odd blocks, which is a sure sign of not knowing what they are doing).

What is "responsible economic development"?
Vetalia will no doubt have a better answer than I do, but I'd call reasonable economic development that which concerns itself with sustainability, protecting the environment and worker's rights, and raising the standard of living for all workers. Profits are important, but not paramount.

What is "responsible economic development"?

Maximizing economic growth while simultaneously maintaining and expanding strict protections for the environment and fair labor laws. It also involves increasing international free trade under the supervision of strong, binding multilateral environmental and labor agreements and maintaining a responsible fiscal and monetary policy that keep growth strong and inflation stable.

The goal is to encourage world economic growth worldwide without sacrificing the sustainability of the environment and protection of labor rights as part of that goal. Economic growth should be a means of improving the living standards those who take part in the economy, not a goal in itself; labor rights and a clean environment are integral to improving living standards.

Vetalia will no doubt have a better answer than I do, but I'd call reasonable economic development that which concerns itself with sustainability, protecting the environment and worker's rights, and raising the standard of living for all workers. Profits are important, but not paramount.

In that case, everyone's in favor of "responsible economic development." The term only becomes meaningful when we apply it to policy and not to objectives.

In that case, everyone's in favor of "responsible economic development." The term only becomes meaningful when we apply it to policy and not to objectives.

Not really; a lot of conservatives don't want government intervention in the market, and many companies don't like added regulations that increase costs and decrease profits.

Ideally, by electing Gore he would negotiate and pursue these goals as policy rather than rhetoric. The Clinton-Gore administration was able to work with other nations, the WTO, the IMF and the UN, and all of those organizations are going to be necessary to ensure that the disparity between free and "fair" trade becomes nonexistent.

In that case, everyone's in favor of "responsible economic development." The term only becomes meaningful when we apply it to policy and not to objectives.
Nah--you'd be surprised. Hey, look at the guys that inspired this thread for an example. They're firm believers in profits above all other interests, and fuck anyone who gets between them and a buck. They're the epitome of irresponsible economic development.

Nah--you'd be surprised. Hey, look at the guys that inspired this thread for an example. They're firm believers in profits above all other interests, and fuck anyone who gets between them and a buck. They're the epitome of irresponsible economic development.

Of course, but would they say that? Probably, they would instead insist that the focus on profits is the only thing that will in fact lead to "responsible economic development."

Ideally, by electing Gore he would negotiate and pursue these goals as policy rather than rhetoric. The Clinton-Gore administration was able to work with other nations, the WTO, the IMF and the UN, and all of those organizations are going to be necessary to ensure that the disparity between free and "fair" trade becomes nonexistent.

Somehow I logged out while responding to your other post, so I'll lump my reply to that one with this one.

We clearly disagree on what constitutes "free" and "fair" trade, by what you write here and by our prior exchanges that touched on the subject.

The "anti-globalization" movement has it right that the present model is not going to work. The problem is not economic globalization, which is a positive development; the problem is a process that essentially involves remaking the economies of every country on the planet in a manner that prioritizes profits over everything else. I commented in the thread on Bolivia's gas nationalization that something seemed wrong with the ability of investors to exercise so much control over the policy of democratically-elected governments, and that is one essential problem that must be dealt with. Sure, maybe, say, France has to deregulate labor markets in order to compete in the global economy, but why should it have to? Why should we have a global economic system that degrades labor regulations, that puts the desire for profits of a small portion of the population over the will of the majority?

We are creating a global oligarchy, a ruling class no longer capable of being restrained by the national public sector and even less democratically accountable than capitalist institutions usually are. It permits the free movement of capital to places where labor is most exploitable, but forbids the free movement of labor to places where labor is least exploitable. In the process of destroying stagnant or inefficient sectors of the economy, it forces workers into brutal competition with one another, degrading real wages. By allowing for the foreign domination of a country's economy, it impedes development through capital flight and the destruction of infant industry, and as domestic demand is reduced through reductions in public spending, capital flight, and general economic unsettlement, exporting to foreign markets puts the majority of the world in competition and can further degrade wages.

As to dealing with these problems, my ultimate preference would be putting these global institutions under the control of the world's people. It's not feasible at this point in time, obviously. Right now, there are four more reasonable proposals that should be fought for:

1. Strong environmental and labor protections. We agree on this point.
2. An end to First World protectionism. We agree on this point, too.
3. Economic sovereignty. Permit Third World countries to protect their resources and infant industry, to keep the proceeds of their economy in their own country, and to make decisions about the economy without constant interference from unaccountable global institutions.
4. Economic multilateralism. I'm not sure what to call this; I'm thinking both of things along the lines of Chavez's ALBA and also simple agreements between countries to coordinate the regulation of multinationals and increase their accountability. Overall, begin a process of globalizing the sort of regulation and social welfare policies that have worked to restrain brutality and exploitation on the national level, and promote cooperation between countries to improve conditions for the world's poor.

It didn't seem to me like Clinton paid much attention to any of these problems. To the contrary, in fact; he actively promoted the models that lead to these problems. If we get a President Gore, hopefully he will do better.

Nah--you'd be surprised. Hey, look at the guys that inspired this thread for an example. They're firm believers in profits above all other interests, and fuck anyone who gets between them and a buck. They're the epitome of irresponsible economic development.

Well, look, the fund is supposedly managed by steve milloy, who is a buddy of steve forbes and all that.

The bottom line is however, that no-one is interested in having a public policy analyist managing their pension. And the whole premise of the thing is some rubbish about 'green' funds - which don't really have an advocacy policy per se, but rather a refusal to invest in the first place.

I still say it is a scam though, looking at it's stock allocations. No-one serious buys in units of less than 100. Odd numbers, like 26, are hard to sell without incurring transaction fees.

Well, look, the fund is supposedly managed by steve milloy, who is a buddy of steve forbes and all that.

The bottom line is however, that no-one is interested in having a public policy analyist managing their pension. And the whole premise of the thing is some rubbish about 'green' funds - which don't really have an advocacy policy per se, but rather a refusal to invest in the first place.

I still say it is a scam though, looking at it's stock allocations. No-one serious buys in units of less than 100. Odd numbers, like 26, are hard to sell without incurring transaction fees.
Well, seeing as I know less than nothing about that sort of thing, I'll leave that to you. Besides, like I said above, my investments are in the form of my recently acquired retirement plan, and I don't deal with them directly except to allocate to the various funds available. Some of the funds--not all, but some--are to green funds, but some are just your basic aggressive investment funds. I'm not kneejerk about this, mainly because I don't know enough or have enough to worry about it.

Well, seeing as I know less than nothing about that sort of thing, I'll leave that to you. Besides, like I said above, my investments are in the form of my recently acquired retirement plan, and I don't deal with them directly except to allocate to the various funds available. Some of the funds--not all, but some--are to green funds, but some are just your basic aggressive investment funds. I'm not kneejerk about this, mainly because I don't know enough or have enough to worry about it.

It's really neither here nor there really. The current value of the stock capitalization in the US is aound $12+ trillion. According to the angry people who started this fund, there is *gasp* $38 billion in 'green' funds. (Clearly a threat to the capital markets). So far they have $4million in support of their nonsense. Puts it in perspective.

I hate them though, for making yet another wedge issue out of nothing. Because 'green' funds can be good. Just depends on how they are managed. It is like any other sector.

[Though once you go down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny].

It's really neither here nor there really. The current value of the stock capitalization in the US is aound $12+ trillion. According to the angry people who started this fund, there is *gasp* $38 billion in 'green' funds. (Clearly a threat to the capital markets). So far they have $4million in support of their nonsense. Puts it in perspective.

I hate them though, for making yet another wedge issue out of nothing. Because 'green' funds can be good. Just depends on how they are managed. It is like any other sector.

[Though once you go down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny].
Ah. Sounds like much ado about nothing, as per usual with these clowns. Thanks for the perspective.

Actually makes me want to invest in green funds. But unfortunately, I drive old Volkswagens that seem to have the magical ability to sense when I have a little bit of money and then take giant unignorable dumps-like, say, dumping the water pump on my way to my first day on a new gig (granted, it's with a reality show, but I need the money...)

Stupid Lego. Should have stayed with just the old Splitty...

This month's Wired has a series of articles about green tech and Al Gore, and one of them focuses was on how Gore has not only continued to preach the global warming issue, but how he's shown investors that they can make lots of money by going green. It was a good piece.


There is no doubt that "green" stocks can turn a profit or two. Although Al Gore is a wack job I must say he is good at promoting "green" stocks.

Nah--you'd be surprised. Hey, look at the guys that inspired this thread for an example. They're firm believers in profits above all other interests, and fuck anyone who gets between them and a buck. They're the epitome of irresponsible economic development.

Would have to agree with that. I am all for Capitalism. But there is some responsibility that corporations should bear. For one to ensure long term growth alot of corporations understand if they undercut there funding source they will lose in the long run. Anyway decent post Nazz.