And now for something completely different...
It's not usually my wont to talk about economics and anthropology. While they're both interesting fields, they don't typically resonate with me.
Just taking a look at the world today though, I couldn't help but draw some conclusions. (Probably fairly obvious ones but interesting nonetheless.)
First off I want to coin or at least appropriate the term "karmic stock". This refers to stock or and investment one purchases or makes that doesn't necessarily yield maximal return but is invested in because it's "the right thing to do." It's not quite the same as charity in the sense that charity is altruistic whereas a karmic investment still expects a return but maximal ROE is not the goal. This differs from preferential investments (i.e. investments where the investor has a personal interest in the company) in that karmic investments are for the good of society rather than the good of the investor. Secondly, they differ in that karmic investments will also be used to reflect the character of the investor.
This second point is important. In today's society corporate entities are slowly gaining a reputation (maybe they already have it?) of being cold and soulless. This has been fine for the last 20 years because "it helps the bottom line." But people today seem to be realizing that cold and soulless things are bad. Who drives the bottom line of a company? It's shareholders.
I get the sense that in the coming years there will be a backlash against the people in the driver's seats of the worst offenders. Nobody wants to be seen running a company that enslaves children and no reasonable person wants to be involved with a company that has that kind of reputation. (Here I'm using slavery as an example; pick whatever morally shaky practice you like.) As a result I suspect that more and more investors will direct their cash towards upright -- if slightly less profitable -- businesses.
Personally I would view such an economic shift as a beneficial thing. Often I wonder where the limit of productivity and progress should lie. It's not that I eschew progress (contrarily I think it's necessary) but rather that I feel that a Moore's Law of productivity is not feasible. Just because I can do the work of 10 people (thanks large in part to modern technology) does that mean I should? Why not do the work of 1 or 2 people and use the rest of the time (those other 8 or 9 people hours) for relaxation and personal betterment?
Just taking a look at the world today though, I couldn't help but draw some conclusions. (Probably fairly obvious ones but interesting nonetheless.)
First off I want to coin or at least appropriate the term "karmic stock". This refers to stock or and investment one purchases or makes that doesn't necessarily yield maximal return but is invested in because it's "the right thing to do." It's not quite the same as charity in the sense that charity is altruistic whereas a karmic investment still expects a return but maximal ROE is not the goal. This differs from preferential investments (i.e. investments where the investor has a personal interest in the company) in that karmic investments are for the good of society rather than the good of the investor. Secondly, they differ in that karmic investments will also be used to reflect the character of the investor.
This second point is important. In today's society corporate entities are slowly gaining a reputation (maybe they already have it?) of being cold and soulless. This has been fine for the last 20 years because "it helps the bottom line." But people today seem to be realizing that cold and soulless things are bad. Who drives the bottom line of a company? It's shareholders.
I get the sense that in the coming years there will be a backlash against the people in the driver's seats of the worst offenders. Nobody wants to be seen running a company that enslaves children and no reasonable person wants to be involved with a company that has that kind of reputation. (Here I'm using slavery as an example; pick whatever morally shaky practice you like.) As a result I suspect that more and more investors will direct their cash towards upright -- if slightly less profitable -- businesses.
Personally I would view such an economic shift as a beneficial thing. Often I wonder where the limit of productivity and progress should lie. It's not that I eschew progress (contrarily I think it's necessary) but rather that I feel that a Moore's Law of productivity is not feasible. Just because I can do the work of 10 people (thanks large in part to modern technology) does that mean I should? Why not do the work of 1 or 2 people and use the rest of the time (those other 8 or 9 people hours) for relaxation and personal betterment?