| Crusty Old White Men... |
[Mar. 27th, 2008|05:30 pm] |
I am not anti-big business. After all, were it not for large and efficient corporations doing what it is they do best, we wouldn't be living the oh-so-comfortable lifestyle we live today. My only concern when it comes to what big business does on a daily basis is this: are the people in charge doing the right thing? Are they obeying the law and maintaining some sense of decency in what it is they do? This is a fuzzy issue because the function of a corporation is not to do the right thing but rather to make money. Pure and simple. There is no James-Bond-like evil to it, but there also is no promise of benevolence. And because of this, we get incidences like Union Carbide, PG&E, Enron and many others.
Why do I even bother bringing this up? I just voted my mere fraction of a share I have in one of my Fidelity mutual funds' proxy votes. Normally when I get them, it is just to vote to keep the same people on the board of trustees in the fund and possibly some insignificant procedural change to the fund. But this one had a different line.
"Proposal 5. Shareholder proposal for Fidelity Canada Fund, Fidelity Diversified International Fund, Fidelity International Discovery Fund, Fidelity Mid-Cap Stock Fund, and Fidelity Overseas Fund concerning Board oversight procedures to screen out investments in companies that substantially contribute to genocide."
At the top of the proposal is a recommendation from the Board of Trustees.
"THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES RECOMMENDS A VOTE AGAINST THE FOLLOWING"
So...the Board of Trustees recommends AGAINST screening out investments in companies that contribute to genocide? I guess the saying is true... 'sometimes what's right isn't as important as what's profitable.'
It doesn't matter really...after all, I only have a fraction of a share in this fund that represents a tiny portion of the total. I am sure there is some other rich person out there on a board like this who already has the majority stake in this fund anyways who promptly voted against this proposal also. So why do I even bother bringing it up? I simply don't understand how it is that people can become so comfortable and selfish that they are able to rationalize something like this. Where does one's morality go when they think that a higher rate of return is more important than making sure that people aren't exploited, oppressed and ultimately exterminated. I am sure all of you out there wouldn't want your mutual fund to buy stock in a company that gives to Al Qaeda or one of those African dictators. And just try to imagine the legal ramifications if you yourself were to donate, even unknowingly, to a terrorist group. It's not tolerated in society, so why is there some kind of buffer around businesses that allows them to get away with such huge and obvious lacks of morality?
Sigh... |
|
|
| It's been a long time... |
[Aug. 14th, 2006|12:50 am] |
It has been a long time, but it looks as if the RIAA is still up to its evil antics.
Ken Lay can die and have all charges dropped because of it, and RIAA seems to think it's okay to sue a deceased defendant's children. And for what?!? What exactly is the recording industry trying to prove?
This just reinforces my commitment to never endorse the music recording industry ever again. |
|
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
ixnayonthetimma's journal